Google will soon ask Australian users to show ID to view some content
reclaimthenet.org
reclaimthenet.org
There, I fixed it. I'm getting tired of every headline trying to bash on Google/Facebook/etc. for clicks.
Google is exploiting the requirement for age verification to set up Google accounts for future purchases.
So then, how do you prove that you are in a different country? Easy, right? There are multiple sources of information that can prove your location - GPS, mobile service provider information, IP geo-location, Wifi SSID databases... . But no - none of that is enough. You have to add a local payment method! And coincidentally none of the payment methods other than credit card information works - not even the one provided by mobile service provider. So, you are forced to register your credit card information to prove your location.
Now that your have proved your location and installed the essential apps you need, may be it's time to delete the credit card information. What if you accidentally subscribe to some service you didn't want? After all, you aren't subscribed to any service or bought anything with the newly entered card. So it should be easy to delete it, right? NO! You are not allowed to delete your only registered payment method! [1] Now it's open forever as a payment method for online services or Google pay.
Google's tactics here are sleazy, underhanded and manipulative. And what of the complaints they receive about it? See for yourself - discussion locked and disabled! I don't know at what point their behavior is declared illegal and anti-social.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/10797082?hl=en&...
In Canada at least, through Visa and Mastercard, your expiry date is automatically updated with various people.
This means that never expire, may be just that.
https://www.bngpayments.net/automatically-update-expired-car...
Just imagine that! The lengths you have to go to avail public services and protect your personal information from a giant corporation!
And? I create a "profile" in my mind of every new human I interact with, and every human I read about or hear about even without interacting with. It's a basic human function.
When I gain a new business client, I create a profile of them too. This might start with a phone number, but over time, expand to include an email address, knowledge about their location, work hours, bank of choice, etc. Most businesses do this and always have.
Consent isn't required for this.
Corporations may be legally people, but they are not individuals. They are not human. And we should not treat them as such.
- logging to gmail on a non logged in android ? This logs the entire phone to the accounts
- chrome and online google services account are intertwined
Because whatever happens in court (if it gets that far), they'll have years of appeals to go, and that'll be some future Google employee's problem not the current people.
Like when governments agencies ask to both "disable all tracking of what their employees do on the platform", to ensure private data and GDPR like stuff are ok. They also ask to specifically "enable full logging of all access to their data" for security reasons.
So: "sed -i 's/tracker/logger/g' codebase" and everyone is perfectly happy.
I wonder does GDPR specify different categories of consent which must be specifically and separately requested?
Though what you're describing would also be illegal. GDPR does not allow requesting consent for such broad data processing just to fulfill a legal requirement to verify the user's age, and then denying access to the service if the user understandably refuses to give consent.
Google has an obligation to verify age. Google also has an obligation to limit tracking of personal information to usages that have been consented to. Neither of these obligations negate the other, and if Google never put it onto their feature roadmap, that just means that Google has been negligent in fulfilling their obligations.
Google should flat out refuse when governments make these requests.
If so, I don't see how it is any more dystopian than the ID requirements that have long been in place for non-internet media. I don't recall anyone calling it dystopian back in the '70s for instance when we had to show ID to rent movies from the "adult" room at the local video rental store.
And was this process duplicated for every other piece of media you consumed, to create a full profile of your interests?
A large change in quantity changes quality as well.
It practically seems like a type of cognitive bias based around technology.
We use some similar technology from the past to model the implications of the new technology and then willfully ignore the fundamental change brought about by digitization and network connectivity. The strangest thing is everyone understands how powerful network connectivity and digitization are in the abstract but when it comes to the concrete we brush it off like it is not.
This is just like renting The Terminator from the video store in 1989. What could possibly go wrong?
Worst case scenario, you had a paper card somewhere in a drawer with your name on it.
The fact is, there are gray areas. When it comes to government regulations, tech companies essentially have 2 options: comply or leave the country in question (note Google has already tried to lobby against the law in question). While "leave" sometimes is the only moral option, I totally disagree that this law warrants Google leaving Australia.
Instead Australia can now get what it wants and the backlash is minimal at best. Meanwhile they can go on to celebrate their dystopian law as working because of the endorsement Google gave them by capitulating.
Short term yeah it'd suck for Australia to lose Google but then the law gets changed back, Google comes back, and everyone wins. Well except for the Australian government.
I see diatribes all the time on HN bashing companies like AirBnB and Uber for "blatantly ignoring the law" to get what they want, and here are a bunch of people wishing for Google to blatantly ignore the law to get what they want.
[note: that is not my position here - I'm merely clarifying part of the discussion]
I must add, being relatively familiar with Australia's tech sector and it's people, that there is not a great deal of respect in the sector for the tech choices made by Australia's incumbent government of recent years. Whether or not that sentiment is ethically trumped by the fact of that government's democratic election by the general populace, is up to the reader...
I don't know the details of this legislation but I have viewed Australia as a beta test for new tech legislation and worry this sort of authorization barrier could become more common place in Western countries.
I think most people have this opinion, but I wonder if they would have the same opinion if the country in question is a non-Anglo non-West but democratic country like India or Brazil
For the record, i think Google should leave
I for one would have the same opinion. India and Brazil may have lots of corruption but they are still functioning democracies.
If it were Russia or China I would have a different opinion.
edit: point taken. I had read the "google should flat out refuse to follow the law" bit. oops
I find it disingenuous to claim that one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world has no agency in this situation.
Remember how hard Google fought the Australian laws about search engines paying news organizations.
Not to say the Australian government is guilt-free here. There are no good guys here.
Tired of people defending Google at every turn despite them not deserving the benefit of the doubt for many years now.
I don't think Google is complaining too much. Especially if it gives them an excuse to collect credit card data (reducing a significant amount of friction when they sell YouTube premium / google drive subscriptions).
A prepaid card isn't a credit card. Payment processors can tell the difference between card types. You have to be 18 or older to get a credit card issued in your name (although you can add an underage authorized user to your card). And there are now other requirements needed if you're under 21 in the US, such as proof of income or a cosigner.
A prepaid card is also not a debit card (debit cards are attached to a bank account). To get a debit card you must be either 18 or have a legal guardian who is at least 18 on the account.
I don't about the US or Australia, but this is definitely not true everywhere.
I know for a fact that in some countries children as young as 13 can have bank accounts and debit cards that are not linked to a guardian.
Not necessarily. You can be issued a debit card from age 11 in the UK, although it will only do online transactions to prevent the account going overdrawn.
Allowing a parent/guardian control of the account is optional.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/cards-for-under-18...
But the discussion was around being able to use a credit card to verify that you're over the age of 18. My point being is that a credit card doesn't have a photo to verify that you are who the persons name is on the card.
Not saying that is the case here, but it pretty common for corporations to use government as their tool
> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
Here is the full quote.
> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.
> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
> Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements
Generally, I prefer comments blatantly contradicting each other to at least be a little more spaced out than yours are.
Have a good day.
2) Google is a US corporation. If it is unhappy with US laws, it could be considered perhaps reasonable or even responsible for it to voice its concerns as a "corporate person" while it continues to fulfill its legal obligations. But it's a guest in Australia. If it doesn't want to obey the laws enacted by the people of Australia in Australia, it doesn't have to. After exhausting any judicial remedies, it can simply choose to leave Australia voluntarily. But to continue to reap Australian dollars while being demonstratively surly about it, could come across as disrespectful to the people of Australia. It would be as if someone came as a "plus one" to an exclusive party at your house, and then vocally complained the entire time that they were "forced" to remove their shoes.
I do have a passport that everyone is legally required to have in this country but trying to upload a picture of that was a fucking nightmare so I said fuck it take these numbers you clowns. Now if I can do this I'm sure every kid on the planet can just take their mom's CC so what is the point of this law anyway?
I'd say it's best to photoshop the info/photo, because "deleting" the photo doesn't mean they won't scrape it first.
"Google seems to have signed me up for Google Pay without asking" https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1504079288051589120
This was on hacker news.
That aside, I am not advocating for less choice, merely observing that in many cases users willingly give up their privacy (or other rights) for convenience. Your reaction to my observation actually proves my point.
This is false.
You don't need to give Apple a credit card to download apps. You do need an iTunes account, which can be created without a credit card (I have two with no cards attached).
If you only download free apps, you're good. You can fund the account with PayPal or gift cards if you choose to download paid apps.
Try to refrain from making stuff up in your defense of Google.
Also worth remembering that selling you stuff is not how google makes most of their money. The sell you as a product. The more people they have on their system the more money they make even if they are not buying anything.
I've had an android phone for many years without ever putting in a CC to the play store. I've bought apps though through Fdroid though.
I guess what I'm asking is if this is something Google is doing pro-actively to cover their asses after a general law was passed, or if the Australian government has explicitly contacted Google (alphabet) about this?
You know. To keep kids safe.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-onl...
And any given voter doesn't have "wants" or "beliefs", just violent mood swings and social performance.
This isn't really even a bug of government's! Government action is very often valuable and necessary. But the incentive structure is such that modeling the gov't as a somewhat-rational entity with well-formed desires is usually not the correct frame to start with, IMO
The government does the bidding of the economic elites. Economic elites don't vote, they buy influence.
This forces the politicians to negotiate with motivated minorities before creating new laws.
Instead in the U.S. we allow rich people and corporations (who are not voters!) to give money to politicians. In most other democracies this is illegal and considered to be corrupt.
I'm also not sure how this is supposed to help minorities (motivated or otherwise), since the referendum is country-wide.
I guess this is what happens in a democracy when enough people believe in doing something, even if that something is not right by everyone. Many forms of government are susceptible to this, depending on the culture. The world would be a better place if people had more respect for each other.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum
China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner in goods and services, accounting for nearly one third (31 per cent) of our trade with the world.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/china/china-country-brief
The CCP is evil.
Australia has multiple WTO cases running against China, and the Australian government frequently calls out CCP misbehaviour. In turn, China has placed tarrifs on higher value Australia products like seafood and wine.
It's similar to the Germany / Russia relationship, economically necessary but with frequently conflicting social principles.
Alternate-universe headline: Google uses monopolistic power to ignore government regulation for profit.
Which do you prefer?
Google is going too far.
Letting the usefulness of this measure aside, I think there should be other ways to get your age without using your ID, like using a credit card for example. I don't know if there is any way to get the age of a person using the credit card, to be honest, but at least is an identification method with a expiring date and possibilities to cancel in any moment, not a unique number you can't never change in your whole life (at least in most Western countries I know).
This is.. not quite true. Social security numbers are used this way (even if they aren't intended to be such a thing) and passports are essentially a national ID system. My passport is the only valid ID that I have - of course, I live outside the US and have to have the nearest US embassy renew it. (I don't qualify for Norwegian IDs yet, and my immigration card is a supplement to my passport instead of actual ID)
SSNs? Sure, they’re (optionally) used as an identifier. But they’re primarily used in the financial world, along with your credit score. Most state and federal agencies won’t require an SSN for official business (again excepting taxes & payments). A hotel will accept a Global Entry card for check in. UPS will accept a non-driver’s license to pick up a package. You can vote with a student ID in some states.
And don’t forget people who are undocumented immigrants or on F-1 and J-1 visas who don’t even have a SSN, but still need to open US bank accounts, pay taxes, get US driver’s licenses, and vote in municipal elections.
Identification is complicated in the US!
They're misused as an identifier. They've also been leaked to fuck and back.
Not very helpful as a national ID if they are a relative rarity
Tax IDs are as close as we've got.
Gone are the days where parents could educate their children on how to behave on the net it seems.
We should not accept slogans such as "For the children", doing that leads to ever more restrictions and control.
I don't have any solution to turn the tide, other than making sure to vote for a party that supports freedom on the net.
2. freezing "freedom convoy" participants' bank accounts without a court order
what will we think of then?
There's an easily visible link to close it without subscribing but fuck it's tone deaf for a site called "reclaim the internet".
Does anyone know how these work on a technical level? Are they actually verifying these IDs with some sort of government API? What's preventing people from just sending fake IDs?
I'm also curious how non-tech giants are going to implement this. It's a big ask for small websites run by single or small groups of people. If they face consequences too, it seems like a win for the social media sites to keep their market positions.
Finally, what's preventing the children from just using non-tech giant sites to get at adult content? If it's literally just for Facebook, Youtube and the like, it'll be about as useless as the "Click here to confirm you're 18+!" verifications since they'll just search elsewhere, on one of the millions of other adult content sites...
Yes, I would like to reclaim the net. From sites such as that one.
One way to do this off the top mf my head would be
HN issues a unique number (say 4096 bit) to you when you create an account
You send that number to your identity provider along with confirming proof of age
The identity provider signs that the number is valid and posts it to a public source
HN downloads a list of 4096 bit numbers posted in the last 5 minutes and confirms the one associated with your account is on the list
HN will know that "Identities-r-us.com" has proven your age, but nothing else
IRU know you had to age approve a site, but there are many sites downloading the lists so they don't know which one
As someone else points out, you send a message to your ID provider 17 requesting the minimum required fields and an anonymous token provided by HN, the ID Provider returns that (over18=yes, token=1234567....) which is signed, you then send the returned payload to the server you're asking, saying "I used Identity provider", and HN (assuming it trusts your ID provider) can confirm that.
HN knows the IP you're connecting from and the identify provider (say the Austrailian government)
The Austrailian government doesn't know where you're connecting to, just that you are trying to prove you are over 18. The unique random number HN provides confirms it's not someone else's token, but it doesn't link to HN
I assume there's a proper standard which does this
Google made a number of moves to head that off, including pumping money into local initiatives and a deal with the local media companies.
Not fighting back hard against the current social conservative government's moves on censorship and cracking down on online rights is consistent with Google's other moves to protect profits and avoid paying media companies for links.
It's not.
You would have just lost that person for a long time.
Will Google and Facebook support it unless required by law?
https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/la-video-d-eric-zemmour-restr...
Now it seems they willingly accept being pushed around, succumb to any request to compromise its values in the interest of shareholder value, and willingly collude with authoritarian requests from governments.
It's all so typical, in a way. Whatever shred of idealism I had left for these companies is now completely gone.
This way the problem can be solved without any IDs and credit cards.
Also I don't understand why age verification is needed for Google Play. Isn't adult content already banned there?
1 I buy a device for my child and I set it up and enter his birthday, say he is under 13
2 I buy me a device , setup my account and enter my credit card to use the Store , the OS now is 100% sure I am an adult
3 The browser on our devices knows our ages now
4 13+ , 18+ webpages will mark this in the header , the browser on the child phone knows to not just allow the child to click "I am 18+ old" , the browser on my device would check my settings and say if I am a religious guy I tell the browser not to show the pages to me.
5 if you can't or won't tell your OS or browser your age either send your ID card to all websites or don't go there, big websites will respect local laws so maybe you can have luck with a VPN or some small website that does not care about local laws in a different country.
I suggest this idea as an alternatives to having to send ID card copy to each websites, I am not advocating for UK or Australian laws to be made default everywhere.
(See also: Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End")
And you think that you can't "mod" some proprietary application? The only exception is locked down devices so not only FOSS would be affected but also non locked-down and DRM devices, if UK or Australia will demand only DRM devices to exist so all laws are followed then we are fucked anyway.
Again, "Rainbows End" describes the end result quite nicely.
Since the big companies don't gain lot of money from this like they gain with DRM media and anti-repair I do not see the insentives to push thos ossue to extremes.
I totally do. All that would be needed for this to happen is one well-publicized case.
The fundamental problem here is that by aiding and abetting the censorship, you're implicitly legitimizing the purported reasons for it. Thus strengthened, that reasoning will inevitably be extended, if only by chance - and you won't have any arguments to push back by then. Consider: if we've already decided that cracking down on porn justifies routine violations of privacy (that would be necessary in any pervasive age-ID scheme), and the majority of the society agreed with it, how would you convince them that F/OSS is valuable enough to not sacrifice on the same altar?
Otherwise it seems a terrible idea.
It'd be great if the law said that it's (very) illegal for the verifying party to share or store any of the PII, including with the government.
Do you think that may be part of the purpose of such a system?
What does this comment even mean? It reads like GPT-1 spent too much time on /r/politics
1/8th of the country takes a different approach to a public health crisis and suddenly every hot take American conservative talks about invading the country. But the federal government uses us as a testing ground for technological authoritarianism for the better part of a decade and it doesn't get reported at all, even within Australia, except for on tech sites and other left-leaning places.
If you, as an American, are worried about authoritarianism within your own country, stamping this steady ramping of it out in other allied western nations should be a key priority. But the only time I've ever heard an American news network even talk about Australia was about the Melbourne lockdowns, with completely incorrect facts everywhere, making an absolute mountain out of a molehill.
Australia is what happens when you sell off your land to the highest bidder, throw your consistution out the window and let the Capitalists take over.