Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 263 posts

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#231

Post by andrewflnr »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #225
andrewflnr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about "unique court cases". Surely you must have noticed that whenever someone asks online whether it's legal to do some apparently reasonable but tricky thing, the answer is almost always "ask a lawyer"? How many of those people can actually afford a lawyer? Do you actually think it's ok for freedom to only exist for people who can afford lawyers?

The answer is "ask a lawyer", because giving legal advice on the Internet is opening yourself to significant legal risk. That's true even if you are a lawyer - hence the "I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer" disclaimer.

Fine. You're still missing the point in favor of a technicality. Why does it have to be this way?

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#232

Post by mothballed »

etchalon wrote: post #229
mothballed wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."

The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.

Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#233

Post by jdprgm »

I don't understand why it feels like out of the blue there is suddenly a rampant and somehow worldwide effort left and right to increase censorship, age verification, etc on the internet. Also I don't get why it seems like so few people care in comparison to years ago during the whole SOPA/PIPA thing where there seemed to be widespread and significant vocal opposition.

On the age verification thing the only reasonable proposition i've heard would be a feature that allows parents to set some setting that gives a device users age or age range for mobiles and tablets. I think this covers a reasonable percentage of use cases if your goal is actually protecting kids and not just using that as deceptive cover to sneak in widespread surveillance laws. A simple setting that says for example this ipad user is 10-13yrs is privacy preserving enough and would not negatively impact adults and because it would be coming from the device itself would actually be harder to get around vs VPN's or spoofing IDs, etc.

The idea of trying to address all devices in all scenarios is absolutely preposterous in my opinion.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#234

Post by mindslight »

anon373839 wrote: post #217
ralferoo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The legal question is posed: Who is liable under Roman law? My question is why does anybody have to be liable at all? Most normal people would consider this just to be a freak accident. Sure, there's learning points that can be taken from it to prevent similar incidents - e.g. erecting a fetch around the field (why didn't you suggest that the field owner be liable) as it can be reasonably foreseen the situation of…

> My question is why does anybody have to be liable at all? This question mistakes what civil law is doing. A more accurate framing would be, “why does anybody have to bear the loss?”. But of course, somebody must. So the task of civil law here is to determine who. Certain policy choices will align better or worse with a sense of fairness, better or worse with incentives that could reduce future losses, etc.

"The loss" is already performing an abstraction to create something generic that can/must be assigned. The person who died is dead regardless of the creation of that assignable loss.

If there are too many instances of people dying in such situations, then the fundamental way to solve that is to prevent such situations from existing. A specter of civil financial liability is but one way of trying to do this, and having judges create common law theories is but one way of assigning that liability. Relying on those methods to the exclusion of others is not a neutral policy choice.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#235

Post by Forgeties79 »

cvoss wrote: post #202
Forgeties79 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strict scrutiny is fantastic

Oof, I couldn't stand to make it through one episode of Strict Scrutiny. It was a political podcast dressed up as if it were a legal podcast. Not interested.

You can’t talk about the Supreme Court/US legal system and just omit politics. They also don’t make any sort of promise to be neutral or objective top to bottom.

They aren’t judges making decisions, they’re talking about the law on a podcast.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#236

Post by 93po »

jdprgm wrote: post #233

I don't understand why it feels like out of the blue there is suddenly a rampant and somehow worldwide effort left and right to increase censorship, age verification, etc on the internet. Also I don't get why it seems like so few people care in comparison to years ago during the whole SOPA/PIPA thing where there seemed to be widespread and significant vocal opposition. On the age verification thing the only reasonabl…

it's a mixture of

1. easy wins for politicians in conservative areas of "won't somebody think of the children?!?!" so they can look like they're doing stuff to stick it to big tech while appealing to their voters' sensibilities

2. wanting to de-anonymize the internet as much as possible in the name of CSAM and anti-terrorism but is actually about wanting unchecked surveillance. the same reason we have to bang the drum against anti-encryption laws that they try to pass every several years

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#237

Post by etchalon »

mothballed wrote: post #232
etchalon wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.

Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.

The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own.

Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#239

Post by mothballed »

etchalon wrote: post #237
mothballed wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.

The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own. Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.

OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#240

Post by fc417fc802 »

triceratops wrote: post #201
fc417fc802 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would largely depend on the implementation details I think. Both those of the ID check itself as well as the precise nature of the tokens. Consider a somewhat extreme example. A preprinted paper ticket with nothing more than a serial number on it. The clerk only visually inspects the ID document then enters the serial number into a web portal and hands it to you. When you go to "redeem" it the service relays the…

> The clerk only visually inspects the ID document then enters the serial number into a web portal and hands it to you. No absolutely not. There's no need for it. We don't require Internet connected beer cans to phone home to a government server and recheck your driver's license when you're cracking them open. > When you go to "redeem" it the service relays the number back to the government server rather than your lo…

Entering the serial number is the equivalent of the gift card activation step. It prevents theft and black market resale of a giant stack of unissued tokens.

As to the rest of what you wrote, isn't that exactly what I already described? The only notable difference is that your scheme permits non-government token providers.

Post reply on HN