Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdfasgasdgasdg | Hacker News Reader

Although the title is correct, it's worth noting that Google is not doing this because it thinks it's fun to require verification. The Australian government is requiring google to take this action.

View on HN

>"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.”

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).

Not sure how you concluded that from this quote

A simple "the law requires us to" somewhere in that quote would have gone a long way to convey displeasure at their arm being twisted. But nothing in that quote suggests any arm twisting, and why should google of all corporations be given the benefit of the doubt? They look like eager and willing collaborators.

So why they didn't try to require ID for all the previous years until laws required it?

If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before.

> 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:

You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law.

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.

They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. 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. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?

The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.

> 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.

Wait, but they do point out the law requires them. And as you said,

> 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.

1) For Google to "complain" about the law and then still enforce it is just a toothless objection, virtue signaling. At least in the case of the LumenDatabase.org notice, their complaint actually serves a valid purpose of subverting the law (by allowing the user to see the offending domains.)

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.

Large Corporations will often have government enact laws they know would be unpopular policies for a variety of reasons... Many times companies will even publicly opposes the very laws they actually support behind the scenes.

Not saying that is the case here, but it pretty common for corporations to use government as their tool

Google could have required people to enter credit card details to download apps at all on their phones, following the precedent Apple had already set. That hasn't happened.

following the precedent Apple had already set

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.

I set up my 9 year old's apple watch yesterday. I had to enter my credit card details to add it to my Family. I didn't have to do this when linking my child's fitbit.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251793338 no longer requires a credit card after iOS 6 but is still heavy on dark patterns. A credit card isn't even asked for when creating a Google account at all. My point is that Apple either requires or tricks you into giving a credit card to use Apple services, and the only reason this is a big issue for Google is that many Google accounts don't have a credit card already.

They don't do that out of benevolence. The reality is they know a huge portion of their customer base are already on the lower income side. If required that info upfront they would lose millions of customers. Never underestimate how many people live on the fringes of society. No bank account, no credit cards, no offical address.

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.

iOS does not require CC info to download free apps. It's only needed to pay for paid apps (same as Android).

This is not straightforward on iOS, even after iOS 6 stopped strictly requiring it. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251793338

Ah I created the account on the device during initial setup, so that explains why I was never asked for CC info. Though from reading through the help page it appears they have an option for "none" for CC info when you create the account later. There are no screenshots on the page but I found some on Youtube.

https://imgur.com/a/9v1bkle

Does google actually save this payment information for use in subsequent transactions? Or is it just used as part of the age verification process?

Should we even guess? Google is already trying hard to store payment information filled in form.

Chrome will save credit card data on request, it’s incredibly convenient if you do a lot of online food ordering.

Convenience is often the biggest enemy of privacy.

The current system where we can choose between security and convenience is good enough for me. I loath those who would take that choice away from me.

First of all, I said privacy, not security. Huge difference.

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.

Yes

"Google seems to have signed me up for Google Pay without asking" https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1504079288051589120

This was on hacker news.

The answer to "does Google save X?" is "yes" for all possible values of X.

In the article, someone from google claims the data will be deleted as soon as it has been used for verification, FWIW.

I'll guess that they will be using an automated system, i.e. no human eyes involved. Which isn't that much better, I guess.

I'd say it's best to photoshop the info/photo, because "deleting" the photo doesn't mean they won't scrape it first.

They are lying. I have recently verified my age on YouTube with a credit card, and they've created a payments profile without my consent. I have discovered what happened a couple of weeks later when I've signed up for Google Cloud and my payment data was already listed in the form of a payments profile that could be selected.

Also lets them easily join in credit card purchases to user info.

I had no idea you could actually use a credit card to verify age. I thought that was nothing but a scam employed by fraudulent cam/hookup sites and catfishers. Google probably shouldn't train people that this is a normal thing to do.

Does a credit card in fact verify age? Anyone at all can go buy a prepaid card at the grocery store, right?

> Does a credit card in fact verify age? Anyone at all can go buy a prepaid card at the grocery store, right?

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.

> 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.

> To get a debit card you must be either 18 or have a legal guardian who is at least 18 on the account.

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 how do they verify that you are the name on the Credit Card without photo evidence? Could I just grab my parents card and say its mine?

Yes, but parents have better reasons to stop their kids from seeing their credit card details than age verification...

I'm not sure what your point is in relation to the discussion, of course they do.

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.

The credit-card as a viable ID is hilarious. I don't have a CC nor do I want one. So I just used someone else's so that Google doesn't bitch when I want to watch an 18 plus video.

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?

Which is not a good proof. You can use one from somebody else, it doesn't prove that it's yours. Only that you have access to it. As long as you don't make any paiement, I suppose you will be fine.

That's interesting. Is the Australian government requiring me (superkuh) to take action to follow their absurd laws for my dot com website too? I definitely have Australian users.

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?

The Australian Government is only targeting big social media. They are requiring big social media to be able to identify users so they may be prosecuted for defamation. They and the courts don't care about sites that an insignificant number of people follow (yet). Age verification on Google is just the start. Soon you won't be able to use Twitter, Facebook or comments sections on Australian news sites without sending them ID or using a VPN. Tumbler, Pinterest and hacker news have not yet been targeted.

Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?

Well, the Australian government has shown it's willing to throw people into camps against their will, so...greater control of the population would be my guess.

You know. To keep kids safe.

They want us to live in Utopia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8

The "Five Eyes" anglosphere establishment uses Australia as a testbed for authoritarian measures that may later be implemented in the others.

For the greater good. </s>

The ~only reason gov't ever does anything is because they think it looks good to voters.

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

"because the voters want it" is just how they spin it, the reason is to have a chilling effect on expressing dissatisfaction with whatever party is in power.

"Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.": https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/

The government does the bidding of the economic elites. Economic elites don't vote, they buy influence.

I think we also need to realize that those in power aren't necessarily plain old rich like the monocle guy from Monopoly or Mr Burns from the Simpsons. They're just connected, powerful, to a degree rich, and sometimes plain old skilled orators that can convince a lot of people.

You are not the voter anymore. Watch the second half of GCP Greys. Rules for Rules on youtube, or read the book its based on if you want to understand. The video is a really good summary though.

If that's the case, then we should be able to do a referendum for legislation this "big" to go through, right? I'd argue that the lack of a robust, accessible and easy form of referendums means we're not fundamentally different to a dictatorship.

I admire Switzerland's system, where the people can petition for a referendum to delete any law they don't like.

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.

Swiss system also allows people to pass any law that they like. For example, the infamous law banning construction of minarets.

I'm also not sure how this is supposed to help minorities (motivated or otherwise), since the referendum is country-wide.

Thanks for your comment, I had not heard of the minaret ban [0], which was an amendment passed by a double-majority (people and cantons), and was considered to violate existing constitutional protections.

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

The Australian Government wants social media to be able to identify users who make posts so they can be sued for defamation. Age verification is just an easy to accept start, getting people on board and setting the legal precedent of requiring foreign owned social media companies to collect this private and dangerous information (and note, Australia is also suing these same companies for abusing private information they collect). Assuming the opposition goes along for the ride, identity verification will also kick in before making Youtube comments, Facebook posts or comments, or Tweets. And maybe Mozilla will make some money marketing their VPN as a privacy service for Australians.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-onl...

There is no connection between this and what is in the article, which is about age verification for viewing adult content. If you are commenting on social media, those companies already have all your information.

There is no provable connection, no. But I do find it a coincidence that age verification is being pursued now rather than years ago, just months after the government started pressing for social media to be able to identify users so they can be sued for defamation, bullying etc. Social media may already know who many users are, but they obviously can't prove it to the satisfaction of the courts or with enough reliability or this would not have become an issue.

Perhaps there is some Chinese influence in this governmental decision, as well. They benefit from normalizing oppression.

China and Australia are very close.

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 trades with China, particularly in minerals, but the countries are not on good terms.

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.

The incentives of the two organizations are aligned. It makes sense and is very unfortunate that they capitulate so easily. It's yet another example of why you shouldn't rely on anything from Google.

Google is taking part, end of story.

Headline: Google follows local laws.

Alternate-universe headline: Google uses monopolistic power to ignore government regulation for profit.

Which do you prefer?

Byline: Uses uploaded validation beyond the scope of the law using their patented “improve our services” playbook. (from TFA)

Google is going too far.

If Google (in Australia) does use this information for any purpose other than confirming age then they have broken the law.

Google will also need to use this information to identify people making Youtube comments when those laws get passed and enforced.

They've already publicly stated that they will. There is no "if" in this case.

How about: Australia forces company to comply with oppressive surveillance state restrictions, cynically deployed in the name of safety?

Maybe in an alternate reality where Rupert Murdoch was in the business of informing the people.

Google creating attention probably is best that short befor an election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com