HTTP 451 "We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time. For any issues, e-mail us at info@franklinnews.org or call us at (847) 497-5230." This is extremely funny given it's an article about privacy concerns :)
I wonder why do they censor the content? It's not like the EU can enforce GDPR in US.
Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
91–100 of 143 posts
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#92What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
Well hackernews wont like this but the answer is because it's enforcing the status quo. Verifying age for age-related materials and services. Some internet related services had a defacto exemption from following the laws because the enforcement logistics just werent there. A physical store that sells porn has to ID whereas online you dont, for example. In addition there are more services, such as social media, becomi…
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not illegal to ask a user's age in the US online. Can you let us know what your source is?
> It is not illegal to ask a user's age in the US online. Note that this is not what I said. You overgeneralized it - I will assume without bad intention. The question is if it's illegal to require porn companies to verify the age of their users. > Can you let us know what your source is? The Free Speech Coalition and Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson of the Supreme Court, to start. That was their minority opinion in the…
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#94What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
It's an international coordinated effort to undermine every single citizen's privacy, an agenda being pushed for years, again and again in every country and state, by a coalition including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., corporations that profit greatly from mandatory identity verification online. It's only a matter of time until they buy out enough politicians to push it through and force future generations to li…
Well, we might as well be realistic - none of us have had any privacy for a very, very long time. It's just that our governments can't quite yet use it against us the way they'd like to without revealing the scope. The goal here is really just to add some additional plausibility when our privacy _is_ violated.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well hackernews wont like this but the answer is because it's enforcing the status quo. Verifying age for age-related materials and services. Some internet related services had a defacto exemption from following the laws because the enforcement logistics just werent there. A physical store that sells porn has to ID whereas online you dont, for example. In addition there are more services, such as social media, becomi…
Physical stores look at your id, they don't take a copy. Same for home delivery of alcohol at least in the UK.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#96What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
There is popular fury against the big tech companies for harming our children. That makes it politically advantageous to put forward solutions. Electeds are responding to that incentive.
Tech privacy “advocates” are notoriously useless at civic engagement, so most of the time I assume the electeds had nobody to talk to other than parents’ groups, who are going to pick the simplest solution to put to pen: the companies have liability to age gate.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure they (or whoever sells the product they use to publish) did get legal advice, of the "what is the cheapest way to ensure this isn't an issue for us" and the response was "block 'em all, let God VPN them out." After all, using a VPN doesn't absolve companies of the GDPR.
Yes so the informed choice they made was "block gdpr countries" vs "be transparent about our use of personal data". Every site that gdpr-blocks itself is saying that they intend to extract value from your data and they don't want to tell you how.
Sometimes if you're just one person and the EU isn't a core market and you are a small business or non-profit, it's easier to just say, ok you know what, no thanks to all this for now.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
European law imposes a great deal more obligations on a business than that. This claim is simplistic to the point of disingenuousness.
Since obviously there is no "European law" in the first place, I think it's pretty safe to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#99What's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
It has reached the level of moral panic, so it’s the current topic everywhere. Even on Hacker News, threads about children and social media or short form video will draw a lot of comments supporting harsh age restrictions, including an alarming number of extremist comments in favor banning under-18s from using the internet or phones. It’s not until the discussion turns to implantation details that the sentiment swing…
I think there should be age restrictions. I prefer to do it in a privacy-preserving way. But I’m also not happy about conditioning the former on the existence of the latter.
Re: Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
#100If it's illegal in the United States to ask someone's age before distributing porn to them online because of the first amendment, why can physical porn stores ask for id? Is that also unconstitutional?
The laws typically don't require them to check ID but instead punish them for selling to minors. You then have several major differences from the online case:
In a physical store where they're neither de facto nor de jure required to check your ID when you're clearly an adult, many of them then don't. There is no feasible way to do the same thing on the internet so instead it effectively becomes requirement to ID everyone, which is different.
In a physical store the clerk can already see your face and hear your voice. It's already hard to be anonymous while interacting in person. A law that compromises anonymity in a context where it was already compromised is different than a law that compromises it in a context where it wasn't.
In a physical store, someone who checks your ID is a human being. They're probably not even going to remember you, are just a store clerk even if they do, and you can see if they try to photocopy your ID or similar and refuse to allow it. Or, you may have a human relationship with that person and trust them not to share your identity with their employer or anyone else. For an online service it's a computer operated by a corporation, and then there is no way for you to tell they're not storing the information, which they have a perverse incentive to do so they can tie all of your future and past interactions with them to your ID. This results in a much stronger chilling effect.
Moreover, a lot of these laws predate the sort of databases that now exist. If someone started making surveillance cameras that could undetectably read the barcode from your government ID if you took it out anywhere in the store and then record it in a database to associate with your activity, your typical defense from that would be to not take it out while you're in the store. At which point a government mandate to show them your ID would have different implications than it did in 1975, which could affect its constitutionality.