#online age verification service

[argoskorea]

Online Age Verification Services in Real-Time | ARGOS Identity

ARGOS Identity offers fast and accurate online age verification services designed to help businesses ensure compliance with age-restricted regulations. This service is particularly valuable for industries such as online gaming, e-commerce, alcohol sales, and other sectors where age verification is essential.

With ARGOS’s technology, companies can instantly verify users’ ages, preventing underage access and maintaining legal compliance. The system is highly efficient and easy to integrate, providing businesses with a seamless and reliable solution for age verification that enhances user trust while safeguarding brand reputation.

Features of ARGOS Online Age Verification Services

1. Advanced AI Technology:

Real-time Verification: Quick and accurate age verification in real-time.

Face Recognition: Utilizes facial recognition technology to verify the identity of users.

Document Verification: Verifies government-issued ID documents to confirm age and identity.

2. User-Friendly Interface:

Seamless User Experience: Simple and intuitive interface for easy age verification.

Minimal User Friction: Quick and efficient verification process to minimize user drop-off.

3. Robust Security Measures:

Data Privacy: Protects user data and complies with data privacy regulations.

Fraud Prevention: Employs advanced fraud detection techniques to prevent identity theft and fraudulent activity.

4. Customization and Flexibility:

Tailored Solutions: Customizable solutions to meet specific business needs and regulatory requirements.

Integration Capabilities: Seamless integration with existing platforms and systems.

5. Global Coverage:

International Support: Supports a wide range of identity documents from various countries.

Multilingual Support: Available in multiple languages to cater to diverse user bases.

If you are looking for online age verification services, you can find them at ARGOS.

Click here to if you are interested in ARGOS Identity products.

View more: Online Age Verification Services in Real-Time

[stjohnstarling]

The ACLU has launched a petition against Mastercard’s policies on adult content!

Mastercard put into effect a new policy regulating adult content sellers that makes it extremely hard for sex workers to earn a living online. It must be stopped.

The policy itself imposes strict and invasive requirements on adult content websites using Mastercard’s financial services – including pre-approval of all content before publication, forbidding certain search terms, and monitoring the age and identity verification process for all performers.

Americans sign here!!

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Stop Bill S-210!

Although well-intentioned, S-210, an Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, includes requirements that could disrupt essential functions of the Internet and ultimately harm Canadians’ security and privacy. The introduction of age verification requirements and increased liability for Internet intermediaries, not just providers of adult content, would create an untenable situation. Internet service providers, whose primary role is to facilitate online traffic, would be forced to make difficult decisions about allowing secure traffic and facing potential liability, or rejecting secure traffic and cutting off Canadian users from the benefits of the global Internet.

In order to ensure that the Internet continues to properly function in Canada and to protect the security and privacy of Canadians, the Internet Society urges the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security not to return Bill S-210 to the House until, at a minimum, amending Bill S-210 to narrow the scope of covered entities to remove Internet infrastructure services.

- How Bill S-210 Puts Canadians’ Security and Privacy at Risk by Harming the Internet via Internet Society

This is Canada's version of the recently dead in the water KOSA bill in the States.

As of June 2024, it has been passed back to the House without any of the changes suggested in the above article from Internet Society.

Happily, Open Media has a pre-drafted email that they will send to your MP for you that shares and outlines the reasons why S-210 sucks and why they should not vote in support of it when the House comes back from Summer Break.

[siverwrites]

I don't know if I have many Canadian followers, but hey we have our own bullshit bill trying to come down the pipeline with an attempt at forced age verification and no real good secure way to implement that.

From internetsociety.org:

Although well-intentioned, S-210, an Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, includes requirements that could disrupt essential functions of the Internet and ultimately harm Canadians’ security and privacy. The introduction of age verification requirements and increased liability for Internet intermediaries, not just providers of adult content, would create an untenable situation. Internet service providers, whose primary role is to facilitate online traffic, would be forced to make difficult decisions about allowing secure traffic and facing potential liability, or rejecting secure traffic and cutting off Canadian users from the benefits of the global Internet.

If people could share this that'd be greatly appreciated!

[botgal]

Update on AB 3080 and AB 1949

AB 3080 (age verification for adult websites and online purchase of products and services not allowed for minors) and AB 1949 (prohibiting data collection on individuals less than 18 years of age) both officially have hearing dates for the California Senate Judiciary Committee.

The hearing date for these bills is scheduled to be Tuesday 07/02/2024. Which means that the deadline to turn in position letters is going to be noon one week before the hearing on 06/25/2024. It's not a lot of time from this moment, but I'm certain we can each turn one in before then

Remember that position letters should be single topic, in strict opposition of what each bill entails. Keep on topic and professional when writing them. Let us all do our best to keep these bills from leaving committee so that we don't have to fight them on the Senate floor. But let's also not stop sending correspondence to our state representatives anyway.

Remember, the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee is as follows.

"Bills amending the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, Family Code, and Probate Code. Bills relating to courts, judges, and court personnel. Bills relating to liens, claims, and unclaimed property. Bills relating to privacy and consumer protection."

Best of luck everyone. And thank you for your efforts to fight this so far.

Below is linked the latest versions of the bills.

Below are the links to the Committee's homepage which gives further information about the Judiciary Committee, and the page explaining further in depth their letter policy.

Edit: Was requested to add in information such as why these bills are bad and what sites could potentially be affected by these bills. So here's the explanation I gave in asks.

Why are these bills bad?

Both bills are essentially age verification requirement laws. AB 3080 explicitly, and AB 1949 implicitly.

AB 3080 strictly is calling for dangerous age verification requirements for both adult websites and any website which sells products or services which it is illegal for minors to access in California. While this may sound like a good idea on paper, it's important to keep in mind that any information that's put online is at risk of being extracted and used by bad actors like hackers. Even if there are additional requirements by the law that data be deleted after its used for its intended purpose and that it not be used to trace what websites people access. The former of which provides very little protection from people who could access the databases of identification that are used for verification, and the latter which is frankly impossible to completely enforce and could at any time reasonably be used by the government or any surveying entity to see what private citizens have been looking at since their ID would be linked to the access and not anonymized.

AB 1949 is nominally to protect children from having their data collected and sold without permission on websites. However by restricting this with an age limit it opens up similar issues wherein it could cause default requirements for age verification for any website so that they can avoid liability by users and the state.

What websites could they affect?

AB 3080, according to the bill's text, would affect websites which sells the types of items listed below

"

(b) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) An aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(2) Etching cream that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(3) Dangerous fireworks, as referenced in Sections 12505 and 12689 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4) Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device, as referenced in Sections 22702 and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code.

(5) Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, as referenced in Section 110423.2 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) Body branding, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code.

(c) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) Firearms or handguns, as referenced in Sections 16520, 16640, and 27505 of the Penal Code.

(2) A BB device, as referenced in Sections 16250 and 19910 of the Penal Code.

(3) Ammunition or reloaded ammunition, as referenced in Sections 16150 and 30300 of the Penal Code.

(4) Any tobacco, cigarette, cigarette papers, blunt wraps, any other preparation of tobacco, any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance, as referenced in Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 22950) of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 308, 308.1, 308.2, and 308.3 of the Penal Code.

(5) Electronic cigarettes, as referenced in Section 119406 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) A less lethal weapon, as referenced in Sections 16780 and 19405 of the Penal Code."

This is stated explicitly to include "internet website on which the owner of the internet website, for commercial gain, knowingly publishes sexually explicit content that, on an annual basis, exceeds one-third of the contents published on the internet website". Wherein "sexually explicit content" is defined as "visual imagery of an individual or individuals engaging in an act of masturbation, sexual intercourse, oral copulation, or other overtly sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

This would likely not include websites like AO3 or any website which displays NSFW content not in excess of 1/3 of the content on the site. Possibly not inclusive of writing because of the "visual imagery", but don't know at this time. In any case we don't want to set a precedent off of which it could springboard into non-commercial websites or any and all places with NSFW content.

AB 1949 is a lot more broad because it's about general data collection by any and all websites in which they might sell personal data collected by the website to third parties, especially if aimed specifically at minors or has a high chance of minors commonly accesses the site. But with how broad the language is I can't say there would be ANY limits to this one. So both are equally bad and would require equal attention in my opinion.

[existentialterror]

Do NOT send pictures of your ID card to discord bots!!!!

Or, like, any online rando.

I ran into a server that wanted to make sure that members are over 18 years old. They wanted to avoid the other thing I've heard of, which is asking you to verify your age by sending pictures of your ID card to a moderator. Good! Don't do that!

However, ALSO don't do this other thing, which is using a discord bot that would "automatically verify" you from a selfie and a photo of your ID card showing your birthday. The one they used is ageifybot.com. There's a little more information on its top.gg page. Don't like that! Not using that!

Why not? It's automatic! Well, let me count the ways this service skeeves me out:

How does the verification process work? There is no information on this. Well, okay, if you had more info on what kind of algorithms etc were being used here, that might make it easier for people to cheat it. Fair enough. But we need something to count on.

Who's making it? Like, if I can't understand the mechanics, at least I'd like to know who creates it - ideally they'd be a security professional, or at least a security hobbyist, or an AI expert, or at least someone with some kind of reputation they could lose if this turns out to not be very good, or god forbid, a data-stealing operation. However, the website contains nothing about the creators.

The privacy policy says they store information sent to them, such as your selfie and photo of an ID card, for up to 90 days, or a year if they suspect you're misleading them. It sure seems like even if they're truly abiding by their privacy policy, there's nothing to stop human people from looking at your photos.

The terms of service say they can use, store, process, etc, any information you send them. And that they can't be held accountable for mistakes, misuse, etc. And that they can change the bot and the ToS at any times without telling you. The terms of service also cut off midway through a sentence, so like, that's reassuring:

In conclusion, DO NOT SEND PICTURES OF YOUR ID CARD TO RANDOM DISCORD BOTS.

Yes, keeping minors out of (say) NSFW spaces is a difficult problem, but this "solution" sucks shit and is bad.

Your ID card is private, personal information that can be used by malicious actors to harm you. Do not trust random discord bots.

[mollyjimbly]

🚨🚨ATTENTION🚨🚨

Another Disgusting anti-LGBT bill, planning to censor queer content online.

Yet again another law that infringes on privacy. and anonymity.

The bill is KOSA

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409

KOSA is a threat to LGBTQ+ youth.

It allows right-wing AGs to censor LGBTQ+ content in the name of "protecting kids".

This doesn't protect kids. This actually hurts kids even more.

It will snuff out LGBTQ+ spaces and makes the internet more of a dangerous place for them, more or less...

"Of course, like so many of these “bipartisan” anti-internet bills that have bipartisan support, the support on each side of the aisle is based on a very different view of how the bill will be used in practice. We went through this last year with the AICOA antitrust bill. Democrats supported it (falsely) believing that it would magically increase competition, while Republicans were gleefully talking about how they were going to use it to force websites to host their propaganda."

"Now, with KOSA, again you have Democrats naively (and incorrectly) believing that because it’s called the “Kids Online Safety Bill” it will magically protect children, even though tons of experts have made it clear it will actually put them at greater risk."

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/24/heritage-foundation-says-that-of-course-gop-will-use-kosa-to-censor-lgbtq-content/

KOSA will also undermine privacy in the name of "protecting children".

"This bill would effectively place many internet services behind an age verification wall, prevent anonymous surfing, and would require all users – adults or teens – to verify their age before they can access information or content.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association supports the enactment of comprehensive privacy legislation at the federal level, but has concerns about KOSA’s duty of care, vague requirements that would prevent teens from accessing critical information, and compliance provisions that conflict with current trends toward data minimization."

https://ccianet.org/news/2023/05/ccia-statement-on-unintended-consequences-of-kosa-legislation-would-place-most-internet-services-behind-age-verification-wall/

Age verification technology is just not secure enough for usage at the moment, leaks are likely to happen, it will be especially dangerous if the leaked Age verification information has a government ID linked to it. That would mean that malicious individuals may get a hold of personal addresses, bank details, basically you'll get doxxed by the government...

You may be asking, "well is there anything to do about it?"

Of course there is, but we really need your help spreading awareness around, because the bill is most likely to pass this July!

This website was put together by Fight for the Future. It has everything, from petitions to calls scripts. It's very easy to understand and use and one of the best links to spread. I urge you to use this when calling your members of congress. All you need to do is put in your phone number once and read off the script provided and it does the rest for you.

https://www.badinternetbills.com/

Signable petitions and open letters;

If you live in the states, call your state representatives;

Joinable Discord server;

More information;

I have to say again and I am not exaggerating, this is URGENT the bill could be passed THIS MONTH!

I am begging you, please OPPOSE KOSA!!

[mollyhats]

Kids Book Recs for Palestine

Are you looking for a way to aid a family in need while also getting a leg up on your shopping?

Are you looking forward to seeing friends/relatives in the next few months only to realize "oh no, what do I bring?" Have a baby shower you need to bring a book to instead of a card? Got a kiddo at home who absolutely tears through every book you give them--or, conversely, refuses to open them?

Hi, I'm Molly. In my day job, I work in the children's section of an indie book store, connecting patrons to books they and their young loved ones will love. And I'm offering the same service from the comfort of your own inbox! Unlike online rec lists (which often fall into broad categories or only offer info you could get from the back cover), I will walk you through what makes me think a certain book will appeal to your audience and what content to be aware of going in, and you can ask follow up questions and clarify what does and does not work.

How it works:

Step 1

Send me proof that you d*nated to Marah's Family's Gaza Evacuation Fund. (Tumblr post here, verification info here)

Step 2

Message or ask me proof along with as much of the following information as possible

Age of recipient

(This can be approximate; if you're looking for YA for an adult, you can say that)

Reading level if applicable

(Listing books they've read recently is helpful here, e.g. Magic Tree House for newer readers. You can also think page count, illustrations or no, etc)

Books they enjoy

(Consider especially if you have some idea of why. For example, somebody might like Percy Jackson for the snarky narration, the epic quests, OR the weaving the fantastic into modern America)

Things they like to read about (or just enjoy in general)

(These can be tropes, topics, character types, general genres. For younger kids, if you know their favorite animals or activities, that's a great jumping off point. If they prefer graphic novels, here's the place to say so.)

Any concerns

if there's anything you want me to particularly warn for (such as the dog dying), lmk here. I'll still give you some basic tws but these are ones to keep in mind through the whole process.

Step 3

I'll get back to you with some recommendations, and we can go from there.

Short example conversation

(this was a casual conversation with a friend 2 years ago. My repertoire has grown exponentially since then)

TL;DR give to a family stranded in Gaza, and get professional, personalized assistance in finding the perfect board, picture, middle grade, or YA book(s) for you or a loved one.

[diabolocracy]

Over 15,000 supporters like you have called for changes to Bill S-210, yet NOTHING has changed. This bill is set for a FINAL vote in the House this November, and we’re just one step away from being locked out of an open, surveillance-free Internet. We need more voices to make a difference! Will you help rally your friends and family to urge your MP to fix or reject this bill? Share on Facebook Share on Twitter (X) Share via Email Or copy and paste the following URL, openmedia.org/NoInternetLock Remember Bill S-210? After we narrowly dodged a bullet this spring, it’s back for a FINAL vote—with ZERO fixes. This bill carries dangerous provisions that force us to verify our age before accessing adult websites, Reddit, file-sharing sites, and even search engines. Worse yet, it would put our ISPs in the role of gatekeepers, requiring them to verify our identities and monitor our every move online. We need as many voices as possible to urge MPs to eliminate harmful provisions in this bill. We must ensure that no privacy-damaging technology is employed for age verification and that the vague definitions of “adult” content don’t pave the way for censorship or criminal actions against the content Canadian families cherish today.

tl;dr It's being voted on in November and there have been zero fixes. If you don't want to put yourself at risk of identity theft for just wanting to browse the internet due to having to fork over your fucking ID to access any website above an E rating, get fucking loud about it, Canadians.

From a separate OpenMedia email,

Bill S-210 is set for its FINAL vote in the House this November—with ZERO fixes in sight! If it goes through with its current dangerously broad provisions, you’ll be forced to verify your age NOT just for adult websites, but also before connecting with friends on Instagram, joining discussions on Reddit, backing up your photos on file-sharing sites, or even googling for dinner options. We need your support to urge MPs to vote down Bill S-210 or demand real fixes now! Will you chip in today to help push make SURE this dangerously broad is stopped or thoroughly amended? Support the fight against surveillance! So what’s wrong with S-210? The language in Bill S-210 is alarmingly broad, meaning even your Internet Service Provider (ISP)—not just social media or streaming platforms—may be required to verify your identity and monitor your online activities for age verification. And all of this is built on age-verification technology that frequently misidentifies users and leaks sensitive information about who we are and where we go, or both!3 MPs are reviewing this bill for the LAST time and have the power to reshape it or drop it entirely. We MUST keep telling them that today’s age verification technology is privacy-violating and not the solution we need. We need to urge them to remove the dangerous provisions and vague definitions of “adult” content that could lead to unnecessary censorship of the content Canadians cherish today. But here’s the thing: age-verification companies are lobbying HARD to get their faulty technologies REQUIRED BY LAW on your device. More than 14,000 OpenMedia community members have said NO to violating our privacy, but if we go quiet now, MPs will hear them alone, NOT the public. We can’t do this fight without YOU! Will you stand with us in this fight?

S-210 An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material - Parliament of Canada How Bill S-210 Puts Canadians’ Security and Privacy at Risk by Harming the Internet - Internet Society See 2

[thoughtportal]

Mastercard: Sex Work is Work. End Your Unjust Policy.

Mastercard put into effect a new policy regulating adult content sellers that makes it extremely hard for sex workers to earn a living online. It must be stopped.

The policy itself imposes strict and invasive requirements on adult content websites using Mastercard’s financial services – including pre-approval of all content before publication, forbidding certain search terms, and monitoring the age and identity verification process for all performers.

The stated intent of this is to prevent child sexual abuse material and other non-consensual content. But the policy only applies to websites that host adult content – when all available evidence indicates that these problems proliferate across all kinds of sites.

In reality, all Mastercard’s policy actually does is make it harder for platforms to host adult content – destabilizing the websites that sex workers use to make a living.

Sex workers’ livelihoods shouldn’t depend on the whims of corporations. Numerous banks and companies already single out sex workers – forcing them to pay higher fees and interest rates. And public platforms like PayPal and Venmo continue to boot sex workers off their platforms with little due process.

Laws and policies like these – that criminalize and stigmatize sex work – make sex workers more vulnerable to abuse by clients, law enforcement, and others who target and harass sex workers or those perceived as sex workers, particularly trans women of color.

Mastercard’s latest actions are only a continuation of this history of discrimination and it must be stopped: Sign this petition telling Mastercard to reverse its discriminatory policy now.

[australianwomensnews]

Australia’s online safety regulator has accused Apple and Google of financial motives in deciding not to remove Reddit and Elon Musk’s X from their app stores for hosting pornography in violation of their own policies.

Research cited in the eSafety commissioner’s online roadmap for age verification technology for adult sites last year reported that 41% of teens aged between 16 and 18 reported seeing pornography on X – more than the 37% who viewed pornography on dedicated adult sites.

Australia’s online safety regulator has accused Apple and Google of financial motives in deciding not to remove Reddit and Elon Musk’s X from their app stores for hosting pornography in violation of their own policies.

Research cited in the eSafety commissioner’s online roadmap for age verification technology for adult sites last year reported that 41% of teens aged between 16 and 18 reported seeing pornography on X – more than the 37% who viewed pornography on dedicated adult sites.

“There’s a huge disincentive right now for the app stores to actually follow their own [policies],” she said.

“They collect a 30% tithe from every transaction that happens on a social media site … Think about the force multiplier of deplatforming an app and what that would mean to their revenue.”

Google Play charges a 15% fee for the first US$1m earned by developers each year, increasing to 30% above that. Developers making Apple apps pay 15% if the revenue generated the previous year is lower than $1m, or 30% if they earn more than that.

Guardian Australia has sought comment from Apple, Google, X and Reddit. X and Reddit are free apps in both stores, but users can pay for a subscription or premium service through the apps which would attract the app store fees.

Under Apple’s developer guidelines, apps with user-generated, primarily pornographic content may be removed, but apps with user-generated adult content hidden by default may still be displayed. Both X and Reddit hide adult content by default.

Despite campaigns calling for age assurance technology trials to include social media for people under 16, the $6.5m trial of the technology announced in May’s budget by the federal government is unlikely to initially include social media sites, the Senate committee heard, with the initial focus to be on adult websites.

Bridget Gannon, the first assistant secretary for the online safety branch in the communications department, said the initial focus would be on online pornography and the effectiveness of technology to prevent people under 18 from accessing it.

There would be more consultation on what to do regarding social media, she said.

“There’s wide agreement there should be age limits on social media [but] there are different views on what that age should be … we’ll be doing some consultation and research to really nail down what that age should be, and then trial the available technologies to assess their effectiveness,” she said.

Gannon said the trial would examine different technologies, how to manage other issues such as privacy and security, and whether the intervention should be at the internet service provider level or the social media companies, or other type of services.

Gannon noted that in recent years there was an increasing reluctance for people to hand over identity information to companies, meaning they might seek to bypass any age assurance tech that uses ID.

“We will be working closely with industry as a whole but they won’t be undertaking the trial – we will be,” she said.

But the social media companies would be required to assure user ages, under codes developed under the Online Safety Act in parallel with the trial, Gannon said.

There is no date set on when the trial would end, but Gannon noted the trial was funded just for the 2024-2025 financial year. There was a risk if the technology was rushed out that it wouldn’t work, she said.

“There’s a risk that families and parents and carers have a false sense of security about the technologies that they have in place that they may place undue trust in a system thinking their children are being kept safe when actually their children can bypass it quite easily or it just doesn’t work.”

[sapphicscience]

i don't want to derail the post but i saw something about pauly likens (rest in peace) where the post linked to this article about grindr and the sexual exploitation of minors, and it points to vague "policy changes" as the solution. just want to check that like...we agree that requiring age verification for "adult" online services is bad, right? like there was the whole thing with states trying to make you submit your legal government ID to use pornhub and we agreed that that is not good and dangerous for people's safety and privacy? idk if we are talking about the same thing here bc the article is so vague but idk i just want to be careful that we don't reactionarily fall into promoting dangerous policies because of a terrible tragedy. (and if you read the article it's pretty clear that the problem is that there aren't enough spaces for queer youth to express themselves freely, which is not a problem you solve with age-restriction laws.)

[persephinae]

hey so I haven't seen this on tumblr yet. It's a proposed Canadian bill to restrict online access for minors

Internet bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, aims to protect Canadian youth but instead could drastically alter Canada’s online landscape for everyone. Like various proposed US age-verification laws, it would not affect the Archive of Our Own (AO3) because AO3 is not a commercial website. However, it would introduce serious risks to Canadians’ ability to securely access content on the internet, regardless of their age or of whether or not that content is sexually explicit. S-210 creates liability not just for providers of adult content, but for internet service providers (ISPs) as well. Age verification requires providing personal information to an ISP, where it can create security and privacy risks. Separately, ISPs would also need to view content passing through their services. The latter task is mostly impossible because internet traffic is often encrypted for security purposes. To comply with potential orders issued under S-210, ISPs would need to reject encrypted traffic, which would leave Canadians either cut off from large portions of the internet or exposed to significant security risks due to unencrypted data. Internet Society has a detailed breakdown of how all of this would work in practice. If you live in Canada and are concerned about this bill, you can email your MP to voice your opposition via OpenMedia’s pre-drafted campaign form, or you can contact your MP directly. You can also check out the text of the bill for yourself.

so FYI

[the-rad1o-demon]

Article title: "Let's Talk About The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)"

Article text:

"Back in July, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). COPPA is good legislation focused on the collection of data by web operators from users under the age of 13.

KOSA, on the other hand, is not great. The bill aims to prevent harassment, exploitation, and mental health trauma to minors on the Internet. Doing so will require broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to specific types of online content.

'This bill sets out requirements for covered platforms (i.e., social networks, video streaming services, or other applications that connect to the internet and are likely to be used by minors) to protect minors from online harm, including requirements relating to (1) safeguards to restrict access to the personal data of minors, (2) tools to help parents supervise a minor’s use of a platform, and (3) reporting of harm to minors from using the platform.'

The summary of the bill sounds innocuous enough. There’s a lot hiding below the surface. It was originally introduced in 2022, and its authors, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), had to take it back to the drawing board after a coalition of organizations publicly opposed it.

Those critics worry that it will greatly limit access to sex education information and resources for LGBTQ+ youth. It will put significant pressure on online services to over-moderate users and content. It also forces State Attorney Generals to make decisions on what information is 'appropriate.' We’re already witnessing what happens when the 'appropriateness' of content and culture is left to individual states. Book bans, sports bans on transgender students, bans on gender-affirming care, and groups like Moms For Liberty taking over school boards.

Marsha Blackburn has already admitted that her goal for this bill is 'protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture.' That statement alone puts this entire bill in the same category as all of those other state regulations Republicans are trying to push through. It makes any democratic support of the bill unacceptable. Someone needs to call Elizabeth Warren and tell her to rescind her recent co-sponsorship of KOSA.

Even President Biden has voiced misguided support for this bill. Saying, 'We’ve got to hold these platforms accountable for the national experiment they’re conducting on our children for profit.' In the same way we don’t need or want politicians making policies or laws about our bodies, we shouldn’t need or want politicians or web providers making decisions about what is or isn’t appropriate for our children. That’s our job as their parents. Establishing a nanny state isn’t in anyone’s best interests.

KOSA also requires that web platforms enable stricter parental controls. Parental controls are good in theory, and when actual parents enable them. But this bill puts the onus on web providers to make decisions for everyone’s kids. Including older minors who, at the age of 15 or 16, should have some right to privacy and access to information. If you’re a kid who doesn’t feel safe at home for whatever reason, being able to find online mental health resources may mean the difference between life and death.

The other bad part of this bill is that it will require websites and online platforms to collect MORE data from users. If you think The Internet knows too much about you now, just wait. Age verification may require all users to provide much more personally identifiable information (PII). Your IT Guy can tell you this will put your information at significant risk of data breaches and threaten users’ overall privacy.

To some degree, I understand and even support a desire to get Big Tech under control and held accountable for bad actions and platform mismanagement. But The Kids Online Safety Act doesn’t stop there. It’s going to make at-risk communities even more at-risk. It’s going to adversely affect user privacy. And most importantly, at least one of the writers of the bill is prepared to use it to hammer away at trans rights and social acceptance.

Reach out to your Congressional Reps and ask them to vote no on KOSA Resisbot has you covered. Or you can look up contact information for your Congressperson(s) here. If you do make a call, IndivisibleSF has a good script you can use when you leave a message."

-- End Article

[botgal]

CA Internet Bills Status as of 7/17/2024

I had wanted to wait to make this post until all of the bills updated texts had been uploaded to the usual sites, but it appears what whoever's supposed to be updating AB 3080 has been lagging, so I'll just go with what I have for now. It'll be long as I'll be looking at their statuses and analyzing their updated texts so I'll put it under a cut for now.

A reminder that California's legislature is currently on recess and will be until August 5th. So no immediately imminent bills at this exact moments. But please read below the cut to get more information on the deadlines coming up.

When I last posted, all three of the bills had gone into review in their respective committees and sadly all of them passed out.

AB 3080: 11 Aye - 0 Nay

AB 1949: 11 Aye - 0 Nay

SB 976: 7 Aye - 4 No Vote

All three bills have been amended during their time in committees.

Ab 3080

AB 3080 was amended and passed from committee as amended, it is now available for a floor vote. This is the only one of the three bills where its amended text hasn't been posted anywhere I can find. However, in the analysis of the July 3rd meeting, there were acknowledgements made that not only is there no effective and safe way to verify age to view online content, but also that the existence of VPNs can circumvent any attempts to region lock sites designated as "adult" (the definition as it stands still appears to be limited to commercial websites where more than 1/3 of their content annually is sexually explicit). And that the methods to implement such a thing on commercial and non-commercial websites alike can be prohibitively expensive. So the author of the bill agreed to amendments in the bill as such according to the analysis:

"In response to the concerns of opposition, the author has agreed to amendments that allow a less restrictive means to suffice in meeting the obligation of the bill, mitigating the impact on protected speech and expression. The amendments provide that “reasonable steps” includes the business implementing a system that includes metadata or response headers identifying the product as sexually explicit to parental control software, embedded hardware applications, and other similar services designed to block, filter, monitor or otherwise prevent a minor’s access to inappropriate online content, or that blocks users designated as minors by the operating system of the device used to access the website. It also limits enforcement of this new cause of action to the Attorney General and requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to provide better direction for reasonable steps to verify age in addition to those listed."

So it appears that the bill may allow more websites instead to mark themselves or certain portions of their content as adult in order to be properly vetted by in-device content filters and parental controls that can be set by the device operators (or their parents in the case of minors), rather than a method that would require users to provide identification.

It's eased up quite a bit since its initial incarnation. But it's still better safe than sorry with this kind of bill, so Californians let's still push the state senators to veto this bill completely.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition to this bill:

AB 1949

AB 1949 was amended and passed from committee as amended, and is currently referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This one has also seen some fairly positive changes during this committee analysis as can be seen in the latest version of the bill. The latest version has removed any indications towards age verification. As well as it having changed several of its details. The bill only comes into effect and prevents the sale of data if the website has actual knowledge of the users' age, and that there shall be an option for the user to transmit a signal that they are under 18 for this purpose. Which again should help the argument against strict age verification barriers due to advertising purposes.

"a business shall not use or disclose the personal information of a consumer if the business has actual knowledge that the consumer is less than 18 years of age, unless the consumer, in the case of a consumer at least 13 years of age and less than 18 years of age, or the consumer’s parent or guardian, in the case of a consumer less than 13 years of age, has affirmatively authorized the use or disclosure of the consumer’s personal information."

"A business shall treat a consumer as under 18 years of age if the consumer, through a platform, technology, or mechanism, transmits a signal indicating that the consumer is less than 18 years of age."

But, once again, it is best to still work against this bill and prevent its passing at all in case it there's push to use it as a stepping stone for any bills which may further push an age verification agenda.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition of this bill:

SB 976

This bill passed with amendments and is currently referred to the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately no major changes have been made. Only an amendment clarifying that any parental controls are only meant to limit access to "addictive feeds" and limit access to school hours, not any of the content. As this function still requires a "verified adult parent to a minor", this still holds open the door to potential future age verification dangers. As it still states that an application may choose to withhold services to minors altogether, and explicitly leaves open the possibility to allow provisions for age "assurance". So we definitely want to strike this one down if we can.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition to this bill:

As of this moment, the California Legislature is out on recess until August 5.

The Senate Appropriations Committee (AB 1949) is set to meet on August 5, no word on whether it will be heard that day or on the next set hearing, August 12. So if you wish to send a position letter to the committee it would be best to do so a week before that date, so by July 29. Just to be safe.

No word on when the Assembly Appropriations Committee is set to meet, but the deadline for fiscal committees to pass bills through is August 16, so I expect that SB 976 will be heard before that day at least.

And AB 3080 is set to go to the senate floor rather than be seen by another committee before being read. No word on when the next bill readings will be on the assembly floor after it's reconvened August 5th, but I'll keep an ear to the ground for that.

The last day for each house to pass their bills for the year will be August 31st. So any bills we can stop before then are halted for good for the year.

And for any bills that do slip through, the last day for the governor to sign, let pass without signing, or veto bills is September 30th. So even if the bills pass from the floor to his desk, there's still time to send him messages to urge him to oppose any that slip through.

Thank you for your time, both in reading this and in taking the time to help us fight these bills.