And I don’t understand, because windows already does this and has for years. I don’t live in California though, so I don’t know the particular nuances they are asking for.
The problem is, and has always been, getting parents to use the tools. So unless you’re sending parents to jail for not doing this, then it’s totally optional and most won’t use it.
If you want screentime limits, content filters, browsing history, restricted programs, age verification, wallet control, friends list filters, etc. It exists and is available on Windows and Xbox for free.
I think the next bit from the article I didn’t quote explains that:
“(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user.”
The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and “at least 18 years of age.”
I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can’t use social media. Then you’d enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.
So basically:
Parent sets up device for kid and sets their age.
Kid tries to download Facebook app
Gets denied because they are under age
Kid tries to go to facebook website instead
Website sends request to browser for user’s age, browser asks Windows (or whatever OS) for age and provides this age back to Facebook
Facebook denies access because user is under age
Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it’s the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.
Windows can do that too, for the applications and websites that support it. There is no point in forcing it onto other ecosystems if parents are not willing to use the tools in the ones they already exist in.
So this is where devils advocate comes into play. Pretty sure we all are agreed that this law, or anything like it, is ‘not good’. And I’ll leave it at that. Just keep that context in mind as I elaborate further.
Windows actually does do this on install. However, the Microsoft Family feature uses Microsoft Accounts. So technically, sure it’s not the OS (though it IS part of the OS, as you don’t need to download anything extra to enable it’s functions).
But you have to go out of your way now to do an offline windows install without a Microsoft Account. If you’re that savvy, you’re capable of monitoring your child without the help of big government. If you’re a child, then nothing but honesty is keeping you from jumping walls.
But that is windows, and this is Linux. Now I’m not making accusations, but do we really want to push the idea that this form of control needs to be pushed out across everything, simply because the current solution that would work for most families isn’t done at the “OS” level?
And to top it off, I don’t even see it working. Most family devices are set up on an account with a single login. Managing access is not a ‘one and done’ process, at some point you will have to provide permissions, install software, change active hours, approve screen time requests, troubleshoot related problems, and more (and soooo much more if your kid is technically adept). Is it no wonder that most parents just give kids free reign to their computers and consoles?
So before we go around and ruin the experience and privacy of everyone, can we at least ask what the people who want this have done instead? Cause it really does feel like it’s coming from a group who wants everything done for them.
I’m not sure exactly why people keep bringing up privacy concerns here. The law does not require collecting IDs or face scans. It requires os providers to add a screen where the account holder specifies the age or DOB of the user. The OS is not allowed to send that information to 3rd parties unless it is required by the law. And when they do need to send it, they are required to send the minimum information (just the age range, not even the DOB).
This law actually does more to penalize the parents that give their children free access to the internet. If the parent circumvents or enters the wrong age then they are penalized.
In addition it also forbids developers from asking for more verification data unless they are confident that your age range is incorrect. Which stops developers, for instance Discord, from requesting IDs without reason.
I do not think this law is written well at all. But I also would not mind more structure to how age attestations are done.
I’m sure many parents are capable of monitoring their children online. They either just don’t care or don’t think they should have to.
Fair on the privacy aspect, but again, I’ll point out that Microsoft Family already does the age bracket thing. I think how it’s done is slightly different, as software/websites have to disclose age groups rather than requesting it. Different sides of the same coin to be sure.
As for parents, I think it’s a mixed bag. I know a lot who are a mess at computers. Most don’t even know these tools even exist. Those that do, don’t have the time to do it properly (it only takes one night when your kid gets locked out of their account doing schoolwork due to screen time limits and your trying to troubleshoot why your approval to your kids request isn’t going thru via your phone, etc). But there certainly are also those that don’t care at all or feel they shouldn’t have to do it. It’s getting better though, I see a lot less young people with tech blindness every year.
And I don’t understand, because windows already does this and has for years. I don’t live in California though, so I don’t know the particular nuances they are asking for.
The problem is, and has always been, getting parents to use the tools. So unless you’re sending parents to jail for not doing this, then it’s totally optional and most won’t use it.
If you want screentime limits, content filters, browsing history, restricted programs, age verification, wallet control, friends list filters, etc. It exists and is available on Windows and Xbox for free.
I think the next bit from the article I didn’t quote explains that:
I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can’t use social media. Then you’d enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.
So basically:
Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it’s the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.
I much prefer this than handing over ID.
Windows can do that too, for the applications and websites that support it. There is no point in forcing it onto other ecosystems if parents are not willing to use the tools in the ones they already exist in.
Windows doesn’t ask at install, and also this law requires them to ask for already set up accounts too.
This will make it a lot more visible.
So this is where devils advocate comes into play. Pretty sure we all are agreed that this law, or anything like it, is ‘not good’. And I’ll leave it at that. Just keep that context in mind as I elaborate further.
Windows actually does do this on install. However, the Microsoft Family feature uses Microsoft Accounts. So technically, sure it’s not the OS (though it IS part of the OS, as you don’t need to download anything extra to enable it’s functions).
But you have to go out of your way now to do an offline windows install without a Microsoft Account. If you’re that savvy, you’re capable of monitoring your child without the help of big government. If you’re a child, then nothing but honesty is keeping you from jumping walls.
But that is windows, and this is Linux. Now I’m not making accusations, but do we really want to push the idea that this form of control needs to be pushed out across everything, simply because the current solution that would work for most families isn’t done at the “OS” level?
And to top it off, I don’t even see it working. Most family devices are set up on an account with a single login. Managing access is not a ‘one and done’ process, at some point you will have to provide permissions, install software, change active hours, approve screen time requests, troubleshoot related problems, and more (and soooo much more if your kid is technically adept). Is it no wonder that most parents just give kids free reign to their computers and consoles?
So before we go around and ruin the experience and privacy of everyone, can we at least ask what the people who want this have done instead? Cause it really does feel like it’s coming from a group who wants everything done for them.
I’m not sure exactly why people keep bringing up privacy concerns here. The law does not require collecting IDs or face scans. It requires os providers to add a screen where the account holder specifies the age or DOB of the user. The OS is not allowed to send that information to 3rd parties unless it is required by the law. And when they do need to send it, they are required to send the minimum information (just the age range, not even the DOB).
This law actually does more to penalize the parents that give their children free access to the internet. If the parent circumvents or enters the wrong age then they are penalized.
In addition it also forbids developers from asking for more verification data unless they are confident that your age range is incorrect. Which stops developers, for instance Discord, from requesting IDs without reason.
I do not think this law is written well at all. But I also would not mind more structure to how age attestations are done.
I’m sure many parents are capable of monitoring their children online. They either just don’t care or don’t think they should have to.
Fair on the privacy aspect, but again, I’ll point out that Microsoft Family already does the age bracket thing. I think how it’s done is slightly different, as software/websites have to disclose age groups rather than requesting it. Different sides of the same coin to be sure.
As for parents, I think it’s a mixed bag. I know a lot who are a mess at computers. Most don’t even know these tools even exist. Those that do, don’t have the time to do it properly (it only takes one night when your kid gets locked out of their account doing schoolwork due to screen time limits and your trying to troubleshoot why your approval to your kids request isn’t going thru via your phone, etc). But there certainly are also those that don’t care at all or feel they shouldn’t have to do it. It’s getting better though, I see a lot less young people with tech blindness every year.