Live data from Hacker News

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

241–250 of 598 posts

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#241
post #55

That sounds like a reasonable aim. Online services should be responsible for implementing age verification checks on content that children shouldn't be accessing, just like vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification. The EFF likes to frame everything that might even slightly rein in online service providers as being a terrible assault on online freedom and therefore, in their view,…

> vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification. You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol. This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal. In…

> You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol.

I don't think this is a good assumption. It's not uncommon for stores to scan your ID when you buy alcohol.

> This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal.

This is not quite how typical systems are structured. Rather, the service provider outsources the age assurance to some third party Age Verification Provider (AVP), which then just returns an age estimate or a yes/no. Commonly, the AVP will have a stated policy that they don't share your identity with the client.

Obviously, you have to trust the AVP to comply with this policy, which is not ideal. There are approaches (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs) that provide some technical privacy protections, but they're not currently in wide use.

Note: this is not an endorsement of age assurance; I'm just trying to clarify the situation.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that California AB1043 isn't actually age verification; rather it just requires the OS to ask for your age, not check it.

Yes. And that's awesome. Assurance is provided by the fact that only the device owner can set the user's age. If you buy your own just select over 18. If someone else buys it for you, they can select your age or choose to fake it and you need their password to change it. Crucially, no privacy is violated, but children are still protected. This not only protects children but also disarms any argument that we need to p…

My sense is that many jurisdictions do not consider this sufficient, as they want to prevent parents from allowing their children to access restricted material (as happens fairly frequently). However, I guess we'll see.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#243
post #62

Oh for goodness’ sake, can’t the government (federal or states) create a service that will simply give out a token when someone has passed the age they want (eg 18), and provably goes through a multipart mixer, or just give you a zero-knowledge proof on the device of your choice, anytime you need? On a related note, if they will require a specific kind of ID to vote, can’t they just make sure everyone can receive tha…

Note that the EU is proposing to do this [0]. The ZKP part is a bit of a WIP and there have been some questions about the quality [1].

[0] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/eu-age-verific...

[1] https://proton.me/blog/eu-age-verification-app-hacked

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#245
post #206

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

You can’t patch every hole. Kids will always find a way.

More technological solutions to social problems.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#246
Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill?

As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E):

"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations."

Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while the set of covered platforms is certainly not negligible, it's still a lot smaller than "basically every website on the Internet that anyone cares about". So the title of the EFF article is overstating the case; the thing the bill would require age checks for (in effect, if not by the explicit language of the bill) is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained.

You can’t sustain your own objection, counselor.

Yeah but if you say "sustained" at the end of your own objection you might really confuse whoever is reading the transcript and get a free appeal.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t sustain your own objection, counselor.

Yeah but if you say "sustained" at the end of your own objection you might really confuse whoever is reading the transcript and get a free appeal.

lol :) good point

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#249
post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

> …is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".

Which for ordinary people is the same thing, alas.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#250
post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

Your bank almost certainly uses your personal information to advertise or market to you — and so seems like it would be covered by that definition.
Post reply on HN