"Age gating" of History has gone on longer than The Internet. My middle school US history class ca. 1975 totally ignored the reality of antebellum chattel slavery. I didn't hear about the sexual abuse side of it until maybe 2005. I don't think that's in the middle/high school curriculum today.
Use parental controls on your child's device if you don't want them seeing things. Don't use your bad parenting as an excuse to violate privacy with age verification for everyone else.
Should we ignore the differing purposes of creating contextually inappropriate info and the differing purposes of sharing it? Is there a logical or moral contradiction in treating potentially inappropriate info created or shared by people for the purpose of pleasing or shocking (without urgency) other people with violent, disgusting, or sexually explicit material differently than we treat potentially inappropriate info shared or recorded (not the same as created) by people for the purpose of informing or shocking (into urgency) other people?
From what I've read of her blog, my interpretation is that Heather Burns opposes all government-mandated age verification (which government-mandated age gates must use), but does not necessarily oppose all voluntary or socially-enforced age gates.
There's a major difference in who imposes the age gate. The parent, for their own children, or the website, for all children and adults. (In some cases, both types are wrong to use.)
The California Digital Age Assurance Act forces operating systems to collect age info. Adults cannot choose to withold both their own age info and the age info of their children. Older children in abusive parental situations cannot both get their own devices and withold their age info. I oppose such an implementation because a more privacy-respecting implementation is available: the government could mandate that operating systems provide device owners with an option to reveal their age info or their children's age info.
Anyway, TFA is not about any particular act. TFA is about the attitudes that lead toward both privacy-harming government-mandated age gates and toward privacy-harming or education-harming voluntary/informally-pressured age gates.
Doesn't work, what if both are on the same page such as a home feed? Analogy: the theater shows both R and PG movies, so a forcefield prevents kids entering the building on days where an R movie is shown at any time in any theater that day.
Digital "theaters" do not have the same limitations as physical theaters. The metadata can mark the page as R but include an additional indication that a PG filtered version of the page is available, via a different URL or a website setting that uses a cookie. If the website doesn't want to make a filtered version than the metadata can mark the page as R with an indication that PG content is available if the parent is willing to manually select the PG content.
Good point. Setting aside future laws which might build off of the California Digital Age Assurance Act, the text of the law is compatible with privacy because adults or children can lie.
I was wrong to say:
> Adults cannot choose to withold both their own age info and the age info of their children. Older children in abusive parental situations cannot both get their own (standard) devices and withold their age info.
Retroactively, I add to the end of both sentences "unless they lie about the age info".
These other parts of my previous comment remain unchanged so far:
> The California Digital Age Assurance Act forces operating systems to collect age info.
[...]
> I oppose such an implementation because a more privacy-respecting implementation is available: the government could mandate that operating systems provide device owners with an option to reveal their age info or their children's age info.
Are the proponents of the The California Digital Age Assurance Act satisfied with the law despite the "you can lie" loophole? If not, then the spirit of the law does not respect privacy. If yes, I would still oppose the law. I want a law whose text and spirit both respect privacy, not merely be compatible with privacy.
14 comments
[ 6.6 ms ] story [ 74.8 ms ] threadFrom what I've read of her blog, my interpretation is that Heather Burns opposes all government-mandated age verification (which government-mandated age gates must use), but does not necessarily oppose all voluntary or socially-enforced age gates.
Anyway, TFA is not about any particular act. TFA is about the attitudes that lead toward both privacy-harming government-mandated age gates and toward privacy-harming or education-harming voluntary/informally-pressured age gates.
I was wrong to say:
> Adults cannot choose to withold both their own age info and the age info of their children. Older children in abusive parental situations cannot both get their own (standard) devices and withold their age info.
Retroactively, I add to the end of both sentences "unless they lie about the age info".
These other parts of my previous comment remain unchanged so far:
> The California Digital Age Assurance Act forces operating systems to collect age info.
[...]
> I oppose such an implementation because a more privacy-respecting implementation is available: the government could mandate that operating systems provide device owners with an option to reveal their age info or their children's age info.
Are the proponents of the The California Digital Age Assurance Act satisfied with the law despite the "you can lie" loophole? If not, then the spirit of the law does not respect privacy. If yes, I would still oppose the law. I want a law whose text and spirit both respect privacy, not merely be compatible with privacy.