Comment on System76 on Age Verification Laws
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
I and many others I know who grew up with unrestricted internet access (before and after the corporatization of the internet) were exposed to terrible shit. Like, I grew up with unusually tech savvy parents who were able to protect me from the worst of it, but even I have been somewhat traumatized by accessing graphic content I shouldn’t have. I personally know people who grew up with worse parents who grew up browsing shock/gore websites and who were repeatedly groomed and abused by pedophiles.
Honestly, I don’t really get the backlash to this legislation, beyond that its prehaps being applied to devices it shouldn’t be. While yes, freedom is important, we’re talking about providing the option to limit access to mature content, not preventing them from downloading python or using the internet. There is a justified reason for wanting this, and this seems like the ideal way to do it.
This won’t fix that.
we’re talking about providing the option to limit access to mature content, not preventing them from downloading python or using the internet.
We’re talking about stopping adults from using a computer without surrendering their privacy. Whatever excuses you make about that, will not last. This is a flying leap down a slippery slope, and it won’t even fucking work.
The California law is a local flag for age range. Its not a law that requires ID, or tracking, or anything else like that. Given that its set by the user optionally, and from my understanding illegal to use for anything but age verification, I don’t understand how this is that negative for privacy or freedom.
And it stops here. Yeah? Today is the end of history. Nevermind any resemblance to rampant demands for facial scans and government ID, just to use a website; this demand for every computer to be 18+ will never cause problems.
Have you ever taken a hint in your life.
This is a slippery slope falicy. Just because the option is provided to self-identify age, doesn’t mean that it will be replaced with more complex data collection later - esspecially considering that if its based on this law, it would be literally impossible. 4a bans the collection of data from your system besides age, and the fact that it is all handled locally and sharing it is prohibited means that it would be impractical to implement anything fancier than a text box to collect data. If anything, this looks like a way to be seen “doing something” without having to change anything for most users. Hell, if California wantted to implement a law for data collection, why would they have implemented the CCPA, why would they have written this law to ban the sharing of data, and why wouldn’t they just write the data collection law instead, given (as you said) there is already significant backing for the idea.
even I have been somewhat traumatized by accessing graphic content I shouldn’t have
Why did you access it if it made you feel bad? It is (and has been since I remember) very difficult to accidentally run across anything shocking on the Internet.
No one ever linked you to lemonparty, huh? No escalating chains of “hot singles in your area” ads? No, you know, human tendency to explore and pursue novel experiences?
OK, if someone actively links me to it, then yes, but there’s also no solution to that because they could just send it (or a screenshot of it) directly to me and circumvent any filters there might be.
I’ve never clicked on a “hot singles in your area” ad, so no idea what that is about.
The entire Internet is of course IMHO about exploring and pursuing novel experiences; but how quickly do you imagine children can get from websites actively recommended by parents to shocking websites? Not very, I think?
It didn’t take me long! I learned the shortcuts to hide what I doing from them and was pretty quickly the one being asked for tech tips. Plotting revolution and pirating media in IRC while mom thought I was playing “Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego?” >:)
Kids are way smarter than a lot of people want to admit. I would say more intelligent than adults on average, balanced out by lack of experience of course. That’s why I’m so against government measures to limit their exposure and experience, whatever the pretext. They are our future and they will surpass our capabilities, we’re fucked as a species if they don’t. They deserve our support, not disingenuous constraints or to be weaponized for fear mongering
Because I was a stupid kid and didn’t realize that watching combat footage might be a bad idea. I thought I was just learning about military history. Same way kids don’t realize they’re being groomed or don’t realize that watching graphic horror movies might be a bad idea. Kids are dumb - and to be clear, I know you can’t shield them from everything and parents are still the primary solution. Still, a local flag for age range seems like exactly the sort of tool that would help a parent to moderate access without limitting privacy or freedom.
ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip 20 hours ago
With the proposed measures in place, any app can know exactly which devices children are using, something noone can do now.
When you implement a feature, there’s no way in the world you can guarantee only “good people” can use it, and malicious individuals are way more interested in getting info about children than anyone else.
That doesn’t protect children, it puts them even in more danger than they are now.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
I mean, from my understanding, this would be both hyper-illegal and extremely impractical. You’d need to have a large enough site to lure users in, and collect identitying information and republish it, but can’t draw enough attention to become a target for data poisoning (given that this flag is freely set by the user) or for law enforcement. It seems like this would be unlikely enough that the benifit gained from having this flag would far outweigh the risks, esspecially in the modern, hyper-corporate internet.
makeitwonderful@lemmy.today 19 hours ago
Individual sites will have their data leaked and aggregated by data brokers. Those data brokers both sell the aggregated data and experience data leaks themselves. The data keeps moving from actor to actor while the aggregation is continued until eventually finding it’s way into a public repo or security researcher data sets.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
This is a compelling argument, but do you think its really a significant attack vector? Its already illegal to share or leak, even unintentionally this data, and from my understanding, if you chose to set your age to a lower bracket via this process, companies sharing (also collecting? Currently unclear on this.) this data would also break CCPA and possibly COPPA, and from my understanding, the companies are required to provide additional data privacy measures under California Civil Code.
Yes, these laws will be broken, but will it be on a significant enough scale, and with reliable enough information to be worth-while? Like, since this bans the use of data from those who set their age low, wouldn’t this likely reduce the data collection pool overall, not to mention inventiving adults to poison this data. For those who do illegally collect this data anyway, is it that much of an advantage compared to just asking the user’s age upon reaching the site as most sites currently do? Beyond that, when these sites operating illegally do leak their data, will that data be a realistic attack vector? Like I said to another commenter, collating data in this way seems extremely impractical and unreliable for predators. Wouldn’t those who want to seek out children just go to existing spaces where they can connect directly like Roblox or Discord?
ulu_mulu@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
Does that ever stopped criminals before?
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Yes, in that they can be stopped if noticed. Police are incompetent, but if something is that bad, and draws enough attention, the person will generally be arrested.
Yes, all the time. Thats why safes, passwords and similar exist. Or, more relevant in this case, the adage that the best way to avoid a break-in is to be a less appealing target than your neighbors. Roblox, Minecraft, Discord, and other platforms where kids gather and regularly self-identify are still going to exist, and they are far safer and far more appealing for targetted abuse of children. On the other hand, setting up a public website/app and trying to lure children to it is expensive, risky, and unlikely to succeed on the modern internet.
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
There is no benefit.
You can’t glibly assert that people can just lie, so it’s not a big deal - and then pretend it’ll do the thing it’s for. Which again, is a bad idea anyway, which this approach would not achieve, if it even worked. It’s fractally stupid. It is dangerous bullshit, at every scale.
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
This is obvious hyperbole is you know it. Kids are stupid and vulnerable, and measures to protect them aren’t useless. That said, I am open to the idea that this law isn’t worth the cost. Basically every other age verification law (esspecially those based on use ID or AI) is very clearly not. I just haven’t seen a compelling argument as to why this one isn’t.
Okay, but why? You keep repeating that its dangerous, limits freedoms, and causes privacy issues, but so far, the only argument I’ve seen is that it can help kids identity themselves, but given that its handled locally and is unreliable, I don’t see this being usable on any meaningful scale. Setting up a, “free candy” website or app is going to be way less effective and way more dangerous than just creating a Roblox account. Is there something I’m missing?