California lawmakers approve online privacy law for kids. Which may turn websites into identity checkpoints
- Reference: 1661902152
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/08/30/california_child_protection_law/
- Source link:
The [1]California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was passed by the State Senate on Monday by a vote of 33-0, and was [2]previously approved by the State Assembly. To be enacted, it requires only the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has not yet taken a public position on the bill.
The AADC ( [3]AB 2273 ) was proposed to protect children online. It was introduced by California State Assembly members Buffy Wicks (D) and Jordan Cunningham (R).
[4]
Wicks marked the bill's passage on Twitter by urging people not to be fooled by last-minute efforts to derail the legislation.
[5]
[6]
The bill, she [7]said , "has been in print since February and we have worked diligently with stakeholders to address their practical concerns. It has been reviewed by dozens of lawyers and privacy experts, and is already [8]established law in the UK — where it’s already proven to work," although opinion is divided on that last point
The AADC requires online businesses that provide products or services to those under 18 years old to prioritize the safety of children in the design of their offerings. It restricts data collection, requires privacy settings to be maximized by default, and forbids efforts to encourage kids to roll those settings back, among other things.
[9]
It requires businesses with online products or services likely to be accessed by children to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment that addresses: whether the product/service could lead children to be exposed to potentially harmful content, contacts, or conduct; whether any algorithms or targeted ads could harm children; and whether the product/service uses any engagement mechanism that prolongs use.
"Today California took a massive step forward in securing a future in which the internet is fundamentally designed around the best interests of young people," said Nichole Gill, executive director and co-founder of advocacy group Accountable Tech in [10]a statement .
"The California Age-Appropriate Design Code will ensure Big tech platforms prioritize the safety, wellbeing, and privacy of children and teens, and put an end to the pervasive tracking, targeting, and manipulation they face online."
[11]
Supporters of the bill point to changes made to online services [12]in the UK [PDF] as an example of the anticipated impact in the US. These include product changes like: Google making SafeSearch the default browsing mode for those under 18; YouTube disabling autoplay for those under 18; and TikTok and Instagram disabling direct messages between children and adults they do not follow.
To accomplish its goals, the Californian bill requires websites to determine the age of visitors or to afford adults the same level of heightened privacy as children – which more or less precludes surveillance capitalism. The bill says online businesses must: "Estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the risks that arise from the data management practices of the business or apply the privacy and data protections afforded to children to all consumers."
And therein lies much of the controversy.
Unintended consequences
Critics of the law, such as Santa Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman, argue that mandatory age verification [13]will harm the internet for everyone. Although the bill has been proposed for California, legislation adopted in the state will be felt throughout the US and beyond due to the size of California's economy and the reach of the tech businesses based there.
"Though this bill claims to protect children, the bill will affect the Internet usage of both adults and children," Goldman wrote in [14]a blog post earlier this month.
"By requiring age authentication of all users, the bill would change the Internet’s fundamental architecture from an environment where we freely transit the Internet to one where everyone must authenticate their age every time they go to a site."
In other words, if you hate dealing with cookie permission dialog popups, you're going to really hate having to verify your age at many of the website you visit.
[15]California's attempt to protect kids online could end adults' internet anonymity
[16]Tech world may face huge fines if it doesn't scrub CSAM from encrypted chats
[17]British intelligence recycles old argument for thwarting strong encryption: Think of the children!
[18]Russian ChessBot breaks child opponent's finger
Age verification is likely to require the submission of personal data, to check against an identity database, or a face scan that estimates age. Goldman argues neither process is foolproof and either imposes costs that will harm businesses. And, he contends, the data sharing required to make age verification work itself represents a privacy risk.
NetChoice, a trade group representing internet companies, opposes the bill and has urged Newsom not to sign it. Jennifer Huddleston, policy counsel for NetChoice [19]called AB 2273 "overly burdensome regulation that harms families and violates the First Amendment."
NetChoice has participated in lawsuits against constitutionally dubious social media laws in Florida and Texas, and could pursue a similar legal challenge in California, if its members are sufficiently troubled by the compliance burden.
Consumer Reports, which in April offered qualified support for the bill, also took issue with the identify verification requirement.
"Mandated identity verification would require invasive and expensive data collection and eliminate consumers’ right to read and speak anonymously, undermining the bill’s fundamental objectives," said Justin Brookman, director of technology policy at Consumer Reports, in [20]a letter [PDF] to lawmakers.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has until September 30, 2022 to sign the bill into law. ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://californiaaadc.com/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/28/california_kid_privacy_bill_anonymous/
[3] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yw7c21zD-6dkP@N84Df1egAAAE0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yw7c21zD-6dkP@N84Df1egAAAE0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yw7c21zD-6dkP@N84Df1egAAAE0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://twitter.com/BuffyWicks/status/1563627161151451136
[8] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/ico-codes-of-practice/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yw7c21zD-6dkP@N84Df1egAAAE0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://accountabletech.org/media/statement-on-california-state-senates-passage-of-age-appropriate-design-code-act/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yw7c21zD-6dkP@N84Df1egAAAE0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/California-Age-Appropriate-Design-Code_short-briefing.pdf
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/28/california_kid_privacy_bill_anonymous/
[14] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/08/a-short-explainer-of-how-californias-age-appropriate-design-code-bill-ab2273-would-break-the-internet.htm
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/28/california_kid_privacy_bill_anonymous/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/07/uk_online_safety_bill_chat_scanning/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/british_encryption_scanning/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/25/russian_chessbot_breaks_players_finger/
[19] https://netchoice.org/california-senate-steamrolls-over-childrens-safety-online-small-businesses-and-the-first-amendment/
[20] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CR-letter-AB-2273-support-if-amended.pdf
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Whatever.
As a Californian, and a parent and grandparent, I feel the need to point out that the real issue is parents allowing kids unsupervised access to the ugly underbelly of the world's largest city, called "The Internet".
Buffy Wicks(D) and Jordan Cunningham(R).are clearly unfit parents if they think the State should have a need to take on this vital roll in their children's development.
Remember back when parents parented? Are YOU a fit parent, Governor Gavin Newsom?
Re: Whatever.
> The bill says online businesses must: "Estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the risks that arise from the data management practices of the business or apply the privacy and data protections afforded to children to all consumers."
You are using emotive arguments *against* a bill that asks for increased privacy and data protection?
Re: Whatever.
Are you hard of thinking?
The bill ALLOWS the collection of such data, by law! It makes things worse, not better.
It is NOT the job of the State, nor of businesses, to decide what my kids can and can not access. It is MY job. Period. Only I am in the position to decide the maturity level of my kids.
Re: Whatever.
> The bill ALLOWS the collection of such data, by law! It makes things worse, not better.
You mean the collection that is already going on? How does this make that any worse?
So now you are arguing against *all* age restrictions? Where are stopping that line of thinking?
And you are claiming that because *you* are the superhumanly-perfect parent there must be no protections to aid the offspring of any less parents with less judgement than you? Or less than your godlike ability to ensure that you children never access anything you have not sanctioned? Nah, screw the rest of them, why should you give a shit about those mugs?
You claim to be the uber-computer geek, and you can not see a way around this, to give your own children access to everything you want them to have?
Re: Whatever.
@that one in the corner ”You are using emotive arguments *against* a bill that asks for increased privacy and data protection?”
That is not what the bill is actually asking for. It is asks for increased privacy and data protection for a subset of internet users, children. There are 2 ways for sites to achieve this.
a) Give every visitor the same increased privacy and data protection.
b) Verify the age of the visitor and only apply the increased privacy and data protection to children.
Now (a) would be great but never going to happen, as long as it is legal to collect data on adults the Googles Facebooks etc will collect it. So, option (b) it will be, which means adult’s privacy will decrease.
Because the only way to verify age with a reasonable level of certainty will involve an ID check, a face scan to estimate age* is not going to cut it. Which will have to happen every time you visit a site. You think data collection is bad now. See how bad it is going to be when every site knows who visits it. No need for ad ids to track adults on the internet. Adults will now be announcing who they are as they visit a site.
*The age verification for young adults to prove they are over 18 (drinking age) in the UK requires photo ID say driving license. If they have not got that they can apply for photo ID card between the ages of 18 and 25. They are allowing an 8-year margin to gauge age.
Re: Whatever.
He probably is, but rather a lot of parents are in no way responsible, and I suggest you fit that description as your world seems dominated by dogwhistles rather than reality.
Presumably you believe smoking and DUI should be encouraged, seatbelts banned and so. Correct? If not your comments are pure hypocrisy, amongst other things.
I feel a second childhood coming on
"It restricts data collection, requires privacy settings to be maximized by default, and forbids efforts to encourage kids to roll those settings back, among other things."
And to get those benefits, all I have to do is not be an adult?
I've been accused of that all my life. Now I can embrace it.
Won't somebody think of the adults?
So, this bill would cause mandatory age checks (and look up to see how well that idea is received) would it?
This means that we are all agreed that no company with a website is capable of applying the part where it says "or apply the privacy and data protections afforded to children to all consumers"?
Re: Won't somebody think of the adults?
"and look up to see how well that idea is received" The religious right you mean, who are at best anarchists, at worst fascists.
Really, there should be checks, but idk why ISPs aren't the place for it. When you have an account, you should be able to associate account levels and have decent parental controls for content filtering, web traffic reports, Mac filtering. Make it opt in for adult content. Really think about what children have access to, and the crap tools parents have to manage access.
Of course phones should also build that in much better, but I don't think it's sunk in yet.
It would be the best option in my opinion, because there isn't enough tech literacy in parents to have it be opt out.
Heck, web reports would be enough for most.
ID checkpoints
Most websites already are Google ID checkpoints.
At least California would be less likely to sell me to the advertisers.
Personally, if this legislation will prevent even 1% of the BS web-site try to dish out to users because of algorithm, cookies, etc., then it's a winner.