Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

California Advances Bill For Porn Site Age Verification (gizmodo.com) 166

California is another state lining up to pass a law requiring adult sites to verify the ages of porn watchers. From a report: The California State Assembly passed the Parent's Accountability and Child Protection Act that will require porn companies doing business in the state to verify that users are 18 years or older. This law would also affect other businesses such as fireworks, body branding, and even BB guns. Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Republican Juan Alanis pushed for passage of the bill, which ended up receiving 65 out of possible 80 yes votes, and zero no votes with 15 assembly members listed as not voting. Before the bill becomes law, it still has to pass the State Senate and then be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Louisiana was the first state to pass an age verification law for adult sites in 2022. In the past year, several other states jumped on the bandwagon including Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Advances Bill For Porn Site Age Verification

Comments Filter:
  • They never learn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:55AM (#64496027)

    1) If your kids aren't old enough to be exposed to adult content, they aren't old enough for unsupervised Internet access.

    2) If age verification is required in CA, people will use services homed elsewhere and use a VPN if necessary. CA porn production is subject to CA laws and generates CA economic activity - two reasons to NOT drive it elsewhere.

    • it's about tracking and information gathering. They want to force you to put your info on file with them so they can gradually remove anonymity from the Internet.

      Right wingers want to monitor and control you. Dipshit liberals think they can get rid of political trolls and Russian bots this way. It's a team up with the evil and the stupid.
      • For once I completely agree with you

      • It's the radical left Communist Democrats that introduced and are advancing this bill, you idiot. They control California, not the Republicans.
        • How do you explain the Texas legislation?

          • The exposition. [wikipedia.org]

            My grandfather who served in WWII was very much on board with this, believing that all forms of totalitarianism were just as bad as each other. Having experienced both types in his journeys from Tunisia to Czechoslovakia, I suppose he'd know.

          • How do you explain the Texas legislation?

            From what I've seen, there's no explaining TX legislation. :-)

        • Radical and left and communist and Democrats. That's awfully specific. And yet it says right there in the summary that it's a bi-partisan bill. And with 65 out of 80 votes, it must have not only gotten some Republicans on board but also some of the Democrats who don't meet all of your specified qualities.

          It sounds as though you think California has only one person in it.
          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Radical and left and communist and Democrats. That's awfully specific. And yet it says right there in the summary that it's a bi-partisan bill. And with 65 out of 80 votes, it must have not only gotten some Republicans on board but also some of the Democrats who don't meet all of your specified qualities.

            Not really. Sane people can't get elected in the United States. We're a government of the loudest voices.

      • Right wingers want to monitor and control you. Dipshit liberals think they can get rid of political trolls and Russian bots this way.

        Absolutely spot fucking on. The is the second time you've said something I agree with. You stop that shit right now.

        But yeah, everyone thinks it's two sides of the same coin and the thing is, there's just the coins, and us plebs get none of them and told to be happy with nothing and get back to work.

        • You can't convince the GOP to go against this because they want it to strip Internet anonymity for let's face it nefarious purposes. They want to attack anyone that disagrees with them, either in court or with Stochastic terrorism ("Proud Boys Stand Back and Stand By"...).

          Team blue is just dumb. Really, really dumb. You can work with dumb. Education can stop dumb in it's tracks. You can pull them aside, remind them of how Citizens United blew up in their faces and talk (most of) them down because they j
          • Don't forget the dump AND malicious, a lot of the deep south politicians fall into this category.

          • What does this have to do with Republicans? California is a majority Democratic party state. They can do whatever they want. This has nothing to do with Republicans.

      • Dipshit liberals think they can get rid of political trolls and Russian bots this way. It's a team up with the evil and the stupid.

        Yes, those poor naive liberals that really are just trying to do good in the world, but sometimes make mistakes. Well, we have to cut them some slack then don't we.

      • by Dadoo ( 899435 )

        it's about tracking and information gathering

        If they want to track everybody, why aren't the gore sites on that list? I'll never understand why it's okay for kids to see someone get run over by a truck, but holy crap, if they see boob, they'll be ruined.

    • by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:48AM (#64496163) Homepage Journal

      There are a lot of parents who find it very difficult to keep their kids off the internet. "Only allow them supervised internet access" is a whole lot easier said than done. They are very eager to support measures that simply change the internet so that it is safer for their kids.

      And, of course, they also believe that access to porn is harmful to their kids.

      So, you can try convincing all the parents in the country that access to porn is not harmful to kids (good luck) or you can try to convince them all that they should be taking on even more parental burdens and social consequences by hovering over their kid's every opportunity to access the internet (good luck).

      There may be some parents who already agree with you on this, but how many are there really? I sure don't know. Be that as it may, parents are a large voting demographic. And their incentives here are pretty clear.

      • It's getting to be a tall ask to ask parents to restrict internet access entirely as if you are a parent born in say 1992 you're 32 now but you've had the internet your whole life so why wouldn't your kids?

        Like there is a lot of discussion about banning phones in schools, something I am coming around on as a good idea. Teachers seem like they support this idea but one thing I've seen teachers bring up is the fact that if they try to restrict phones in classrooms the parents have more of an issue with that

        • by flink ( 18449 )

          My kid needs a phone because there aren't pay phones she can drop a dime in to get in touch with me anymore. Phone stays in the backpack and off at school though. The phone is so she can have independence *after* school.

      • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @11:09AM (#64496225)

        I practice what I preach...

        I'm an IT geek. My kids had phones before most others, with Internet. I made sure they were old enough to handle them responsibly. Until that time, they'd been supervised. Originally by being there with them, but in later years just making sure to check in periodically.

        Parenting well is tough, tedious, inconvenient, and annoying. At least it was for me (the kids are pretty much adults now). It's also what you have to do because you chose to have kids, they didn't choose to exist - until you turn them into adults, they're your responsibility no matter how unfair that seems.

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Parenting well is tough, tedious, inconvenient, and annoying. At least it was for me (the kids are pretty much adults now). It's also what you have to do because you chose to have kids, they didn't choose to exist - until you turn them into adults, they're your responsibility no matter how unfair that seems.

          Thankyou for that! If a person doesnt want to do the work then they shouldnt have had kids to begin with! The rest of us shouldnt have to lose freedoms and handover personal information to even more companies because parents dont want to do the job the vast majority of them chose to do.

          • "What's fair" and "what wins the votes" don't always coincide.

            People are very rarely objective, and much more commonly have perceptions that are skewed in their own favor. When such a skew is held by a large voting demographic, it can become law, no matter how unjust it may be.

            This situation is still better than a dictatorship. But it is far from perfect.

            • by skam240 ( 789197 )

              Worst form of government aside from all those tried before, eh? :)

              Well that still doesnt mean I cant be a little annoyed by it.

    • They've already been driving them out, that started with the condom rule.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      1) If your kids aren't old enough to be exposed to adult content, they aren't old enough for unsupervised Internet access.

      The monkeys in Sacramento believe - they really do - that nobody (but them) is old enough for unsupervised internet access, because you might see something that shows how ridiculous their narrative is and vote for the other guys (who are no different).

      2) If age verification is required in CA, people will use services homed elsewhere and use a VPN if necessary. CA porn production is subject to CA laws and generates CA economic activity - two reasons to NOT drive it elsewhere.

      As best I can tell, driving all good paying jobs out of California is, in fact, exactly the goal. Once they've done that, all that will be left are the obscenely wealthy and their indentured servants.

    • Let's be realistic... virtually all technology these days requires an Internet connection, whether it should or not. Even basic socialization pretty much requires some use of technology. Keeping kids off the Internet is pretty much impossible.

      I was a teenager when the Internet was just starting to become available, and I had access to all the seedy stuff in the world, from zillions of pop-up porn ads to StileProject. I turned out okay, and I suspect future generations will as well... as long as the bible

  • by HashtagTrashGaming ( 6861466 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:57AM (#64496035)
    So that's why California and Texas unified in the new civil war movie.
  • by nuckfuts ( 690967 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @09:59AM (#64496043)
    Is there a feasible way to verify age without revealing identity? If possible, this might be more acceptable.
    • Re:Age vs Identity (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:17AM (#64496081)

      Technically? Yes.

      You need an external party that knows your identity. Government, bank, whoever where you have at some point authenticated.

      Then you need some kind of identity federation framework.

      Porn site redirects you to identity service with a token and info about the bits of information needed. In this case perhaps age and state of residence, or perhaps just a boolean on whether they are legally old enough in their state.

      You, the user get a page asking how you wish to provide your identity, possibly with a menu. You choose whatever identity provider you like and authenticate. The provider (government, bank, etc) returns the information the porn site originally requested - nothing more.

      You get a confirmation window saying "the following bits of information are going to be sent to pr0nhub: State: TX, Age: >21", You click accept.

      Porn site knows you are adult in your jurisdiction. It doesn't know who you are, only that you were vouched for.

      The identity service knows that it was porn site that requested the info - they need a forwarding URL, after all - but even they do not know your full identity.

      All technically very feasible.

      • It's the government. They know your identity.

        • by ranton ( 36917 )

          It's the government. They know your identity.

          In the solution provided, the identity service and the government / bank / etc. are still kept separate. The government only knows the identity service sent a request for an individual, not the website which initiated the request.

          The identity service would need to put in many privacy controls to ensure if the government ever obtained their data that they couldn't trace a specific government request to a specific website request. This would include not storing the individual's data, any unique identifiers us

      • Re:Age vs Identity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:41AM (#64496139)

        That third party ("Government, bank, whoever where you have at some point authenticated") now has a much more complete list of your activity in the form of web sites you visited and when. Such centralized data seems even more prone to abuse and privacy concerns - esp. if it's the "Government" who you use for authentication (but the "bank" records would also be subject to search warrants and would also, potentially, yield nearly "one stop shopping" for the government or a security black hat).

      • by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

        Technically? No.

        We already have what you described. It's called a credit card. How do you know the other person is who they say they are?

        Porn, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, guns, etc... were/are restricted to adults only and yet they were/are in the hands of minors and that's not stuff that is typically downloaded.

        This is politics for idiots.

        • by ranton ( 36917 )

          We already have what you described. It's called a credit card. How do you know the other person is who they say they are?

          What makes you think a credit card identifies who you are? There is nothing on my credit card which would help you know who is using it. If I was trying to verify someone's identity, I would start with their drivers license not their credit cards.

          • by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

            We already have what you described. It's called a credit card. How do you know the other person is who they say they are?

            What makes you think a credit card identifies who you are? There is nothing on my credit card which would help you know who is using it. If I was trying to verify someone's identity, I would start with their drivers license not their credit cards.

            What makes you think that the new method will be any different? How do you know who is using it?

      • The identity service knows that it was porn site that requested the info - they need a forwarding URL, after all -

        The identity service doesn't need the URL of the porn site. If it says "I'm resident of Texas, age at least 21", that's enough. My phone would know the forwarding address. And the identity service could be implemented on my phone itself. So I need to add the information to my phone _once_, and that should be enough.

        • For the "state" information, my phone could request this information automatically every three months, so the request tells a listener nothing.
      • The Mina protocol/blockchain is the solution to this problem. Sites don't need anything other than a yes/no answer. No central authority required.
    • Re:Age vs Identity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Big Boss ( 7354 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:29AM (#64496109)

      There are at least some possible ways, but even if they claimed to do it, could you trust them? I don't mind the concept of age verification. What I mind is that it eliminates anonymity. It makes it trivial to match viewing habits for everything to your real identity. For most of us, there isn't much to see, but it should still be our choice. More so since we know this isn't going to stay just being about porn. It will end up being pushed into everything. With the info coming out from both corporations and governments, I see no reason to trust any of them with more personal data.

      Even if I wanted to be trusting, any system holding this information is a huge hacking target. The idea that these same companies and governments can protect this when they have utterly failed at protecting anything else is a bit much to buy into.

    • On paper yes, there is, in practice as soon as the government wants that information they can and will get it. Also that info will definitely leak and be used to blackmail people.
    • Re:Age vs Identity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:41AM (#64496141) Homepage Journal

      Sell age-restricted Visa cards where they sell alcohol and tobacco.

      Pay cash, they ID you there, but don't record anything.

      $5 cards would be fine for almost everybody.

      Porn sites get a list of the 4xxx yyyy prefixes that are compliant and sell $5/yr memberships equivalent to the free level.

      But "their" real goal is an "internet driver's license" where everything you look at is tracked to your personhood and reported to a central authority "to prevent terrorism, child abuse, and medical malinformation".

      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        Sell age-restricted Visa cards where they sell alcohol and tobacco.

        Pay cash, they ID you there, but don't record anything.

        $5 cards would be fine for almost everybody.

        Which then the adult drug addicts or homeless can buy and turn around to sell these to kids waiting just outside at $10 a pop.

        Great idea.

    • "To watch this next video, you must first solve this differential equation."
      I guarantee this will raise high school math scores by leaps and bounds.

    • by eth1 ( 94901 )

      A ID verification service that has a physical booth you go into, create a username and password, then show an actual human your ID and face. On their end, they enter that the logged in account was over 21 as of the verification date.

      That's all you need - they store nothing but a username, password, and date (that's not connected to your personal info). You can create as many user/pw accounts as you want so that stuff can't be connected that way.

      Anyone storing more information than that, or insisting on a ce

    • I can imagine technical solutions, but they would require some sort of trusted agency to provide age information only in some encrypted way. I very much doubt that will happen because I suspect this motivated by two other desires: Tracking all people's actions online, and discouraging porn consumption on moral grounds. I don't know how to evaluate the scale of either.

      I don't think this significantly protects children - there are far worst things that porn that a child can get to if they have unrestri
  • Stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @10:20AM (#64496091) Journal
    Little underage TImmy will just """borrow""" dads drivers license and use that to get PornHub access, through. Maybe there'll even be a whole network of """borrowed""" IDs springing up so all the Timmys in the country can get their freak on. If nothing else they'll just start filesharing porn between themselves and no one will be able to stop it. This is just wasted effort for a law that won't have any real effect except to make life more difficult for adults, and more invasion of peoples' privacy, since there's no way this won't end up with some sort of database of porn viewers.
    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      Or uses an open proxy server like every other 10 year old who knows how to use Google.

      • by ranton ( 36917 )

        Maybe it's just because she only tests at around the 75% percentile in school, but I guarantee you my 10 year old does not know what a proxy server is. Okay fine, she isn't 10 for a couple more months, but I'm certain she won't learn it by then. And that isn't just wishful thinking; I'd be thrilled if she figured it out.

    • These laws have absolutely nothing to do with Timmy. This is a bullshit "think of the children!" law to strip anonymity on the net more easily than it already is.

    • I agree, but it's even simpler for Timmy than that. It's not as if all the porn sites on the internet are going to adhere to this. And even if California decides to try to block all the ones that don't and succeeds, there is an assload (pun intended) of porn in torrents.
      Even if they succeed in blocking all those as well, the 'best' they could achieve is push a bunch of horny teenagers towards sites with semi-porn like Twitch or shady video-chat services.

      Only morons who don't understand how the internet and

  • Coinbase, Kraken and other firms have already proven at scale that you can use AI to process a government ID and selfie pair at scale to recreate a reasonable online version of the IRL act of handing over your government ID for a quick verification.

    The porn companies aren't afraid of adults getting doxxed and crap like that because there's no legal requirement to keep the IDs and selfies if you have a provable workflow showing you accept the pair, process it, verify it and then cleanup the data.

    No, folks, t

    • Setting up an ML to scan an image that contains an ID and verify it is trivial these days.

      The problem is it doesn't actually keep someone from just holding up any ID. It can be fake. It can be not even theirs. Heck I can photoshop something that will easily pass an ML check.

      > They're afraid of losing some of their best customers: minors.

      [Citation Required] Boomers and Gen X are the ones paying for porn. Young people don't bother. They torrent it or just go on Twitter or are more interested in the softcor

  • I suggest Apple and Google put some software on their phones so that you can take your passport say to an Apple store, they enter your date of birth, and from then on the browser is capable to answer the question "is the owner of this phone 18 / 21 / 12 years old". Without realising the date of birth which is private information, without releasing the name.

    Just a verification that the owner of this phone has the required age. Plus an option where the owner can say to a random website that they don't trus
    • Won't happen. We require every business to store an image of the customer's government-issued identification or a non-prepaid credit card. It's not required to actually verify that the driver's license or state ID is legit with the DMV, just to require that it be virtually presented. If you want to visit the same site every day, then you need to either provide the ID every day, or you need to make an account. Most (all?) sites are just going to force you to make an account.

      And yes. Any child can photoshop a

  • The burden for adults doesn't justify the minuscule protection provided to children, especially when we're completely ignoring all the other major sources of injury to children.

    Firearm-related injuries, motor vehicle crashes, diet, exercise, access to healthcare, and poverty are the primary sources of injury, death, and poor quality of life for California's children. Focusing on those instead of protecting children from what is statistically a minor or non-issue is the standard that we should hold Sacrament

  • by poptix ( 78287 ) on Friday May 24, 2024 @12:38PM (#64496483) Homepage

    Won't this disproportionately impact the minorities that aren't able to figure out how to get an ID?

    You know, the argument people use against voter ID

  • Require porn sites to have a top-level-domain or some kind of clear marker that indicates it's porn.

    Then when parents purchase a device for their children, they can set an OS switch to filter out the marked sites and lock that admin area with a password. Any consumer device that connects to the internet would be required to make it easy for parents to find such an option. Device sellers will be required make sure the device is certified for such. (There will be a grace period for used devices, but over time

  • ... who want to regulate everything else down to the last molecule, become instant libertarians when porn is involved.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...