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

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 369 posts

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#301

Post by tzs »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #183

Based on the few snippets quoted in the article, I think as written this bill gets closer to a good, privacy-preserving, non-authoritarian version of "age verification" than any of the attempts so far. What it seems to be aiming for is essentially mandatory parental controls at the OS level. No ID checking or government/third party involvement, it just uses whatever age the parents enter when they set up the device/u…

> Based on the few snippets quoted in the article, I think as written this bill gets closer to a good, privacy-preserving, non-authoritarian version of "age verification" than any of the attempts so far.

I think you are mixing up the bill this article is covering and the bill that California passed.

The California law requires:

• When setting up an account for a child who is the primary user of a device the OS lets the parent specify the child's age or birthday.

• The OS to provide an API that apps can use to find out if the current user is a child and if so their age range (under 13, 13 but under 16, 16 but under 18, 18 or older).

The bill in Congress requires setting age information for all users. It does not specify how that age information is to be obtained, leaving such details to regulations that the FTC will write.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#302

Post by tzs »

josh-sematic wrote: post #119

There’s a version of this I could support: - pre-specified age gates baked into the protocol (perhaps just 13 and 18). - account admins on a device get to specify which bracket is associated with the account - an api that allows sites to query whether the current user’s account is above one of the thresholds Leaks pretty minimal PII (the user is between 13 and 18 would be the tightest identifier obtainable with the a…

That's pretty much the California law.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#304

Post by tzs »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

You are probably mixing up this bill with the California law, which its title kind of suggests it would be similar to but it isn't really.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#305

Post by tzs »

Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #270
hackinthebochs wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try to be a little bit sensible here. Presumably the requirement to check depends on the nature of the application. A completely offline app for example has no use for an age check and thus wouldn't need to read it.

The sensible thing is to abandon these bills. AB1043 is short; you can read it for yourself: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3273385 ``` (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched. ```

That should be read as "when the application is (downloaded and launched)".

If it were meant as "when the application is downloaded and every time the application is launched" it would probably have been written as "when the application is downloaded or launched".

Also, there would be no point in mentioning downloads if that was a separate check because the app developer cannot request the signal upon download because their app is not running then.

The most reasonable conclusion is that the app must check the first time it is launched.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#306

Post by yabutlivnWoods »

basisword wrote: post #113
yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the UK..." Good thing I live in the US?

Looks like you missed the point. Apple won't fight this in the US because they aren't fighting it anywhere else and already caved.

No I got the point.

Those other countries have different legal norms.

Apple has engaged in censorship in China to stay in business there that they didn't engage in in the US.

Until whatever happens happens the idea they will behave the same in their own backyard low effort speculation

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#307

Post by yabutlivnWoods »

lxgr wrote: post #170
yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What pedestal did I put Apple on by highlighting past behavior? Oh right I didn't. You're just inferring incorrectly. Another HN specialty. Other countries are not the US, btw. There are groups here ready to challenge such a move. Continually amazed at HN ignorance of geography.

To both you and GP: Consider that you're not just stuck in HN, you are part of HN :)

But I am not stuck in HN. This account is 100% disposable to me.

With warm weather approaching I will log off this throwaway, setup as something to do during a cold stretch, and forget it exists.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#308

Post by iamnothere »

rickydroll wrote: post #193
iamnothere wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sporadic medium-long distance communication over packet radio. 10MHz isn’t too crowded and can be easily used for regional communications (and occasionally long distance) via atmospheric bounce. It also works well at low power and the antenna is shorter than other long distance modes like the longer wave HF bands (20m+).

Are you thinking of 100mhz (3m)? Sending data by radio is messy, slow, and generally disappointing. Start your journey by reading up on the Aloha system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet .

My apologies, I meant 10m (28 MHz). Brain fart. It’s slow but it’s more than adequate for text, and range is excellent (hundreds of miles).

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#309

Post by rolph »

just occured to me, there will be some cohort that gives this the windows treatment, refusing to update, or upgrade versions, and retain present OS.

the next step if this bill passes seems to nessecarily involve excluding holdouts from content rated beyond toddler safe.

Post reply on HN