Senate OS Age Requirement Bill Introduced
kim.senate.gov
kim.senate.gov
It would be nice if these website stops all these crap, but I guess in long term it is going to be impossible due to stupid regulations.
> The term operating system provider means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a covered device.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s5090/text/is#lin...
Whoever wrote this is technologically illiterate.
- Permit signals to include age verification methods that minimize data disclosure, including the use of verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs,
- Establish a device-level age assurance framework requiring operating system providers to collect a user’s age during operating system account creation or from existing account holders,
- Require operating systems to convert a user’s age into privacy-protective age brackets—under 13; ages 13–15; age 16; and age 17 or older—rather than sharing the user’s exact age or date of birth,
- Create a secure, real-time operating system signal that applications, browsers, application stores, and covered websites must request and use as the primary indicator of a user’s age,
- Require children under age 17 to link their operating system account to a parent or legal guardian account and allow the user or linked parent or guardian to view the child’s age bracket data,
- Establish a process for resolving conflicting age information, including user notice, an opportunity to correct inaccurate information, and distribution of an updated age signal,
- Prohibit developers and covered website operators from requesting more age information than the standardized signal or sharing age bracket data with third parties,
- Impose data minimization requirements limiting the collection, retention, use, and combination of age-related information, including prohibitions on using age bracket data for profiling, engagement optimization, or targeted advertising,
- Prohibit the transfer of children’s personal data to data brokers, while preserving contextual advertising that does not rely on personal data or behavioral profiling,
- Include competition safeguards preventing operating system providers and application stores from imposing more restrictive age-related requirements on third-party applications or using age bracket data to disadvantage competitors, and
- Establish enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per negligent violation and $7,500 per knowing or intentional violation, which may be multiplied by the number of children affected,
- Create a national baseline that preempts only conflicting State requirements while preserving Federal or State laws that provide protections at least as strong as the Act.
- If a platform facilitates grooming give them 8 hours to fix it or their domains and IP allocations are seized forever even if they are a fortune 50. 4 hours for second vector and so on. Too many clients is not excuse. AI can have an army of angry virtual moms watching every interaction. If the company board members or executives try to lobby their way out de-naturalize or conscript.
- Put the groomers in GenPop and tell all the guards they are chomo's to reduce recidivism.
[1] - https://nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20230829-Think-Of-The-Chi...
Maybe it's the stuff that's already illegal for minors, or where minors are required to be segregated. Well if the law already requires online businesses to follow those laws, what the hell is this bill for?
Online businesses can already verify ID or ask for age at sign-up. They don't need an extra layer of technology shoved into the OS. This new OS-level control does not add anything a company couldn't add itself. What it does do is enable the government and corporations to track every individual, on every site they go to.
The other thing this bill does is indemnify online businesses so they don't have to protect kids. When a predator makes an account on their computer that says they're 13, they can now sign up for an account on Roblox as a 13 year old. When they abuse some kids, and the parents sue Roblox, Roblox will say "not our fault! the account said it was a 13 year old. blame someone else."
And how can you actually prevent every child from accessing any age-inappropriate content? It's so overly broad it's like saying "Protect Children In The Streets". You can't protect every child in every street at all times, you would need a police officer every 50 feet on every street in the world. Hence why we require parents to protect their own children. Until they go on the internet, that is.
The bill says parents "deserve the peace of mind" that their kids are "shielded from inappropriate and harmful content". There's no way to ensure that in general. But there is a billion-dollar industry of parental control software, so parents can already protect their kids when they're on the internet. Afraid of them meeting a predator on social media? Don't let them on social media (it's good for them anyway). Not sure who they're messaging? Install a keylogger/screengrabber. There's thousands of tools on the market to manage kids' online activity. This bill just pretends kids are safe, so parents can avoid their own responsibility.
The bill is not intended to protect children. It's for mass surveillance, and to allow Meta to sell ads to kids without getting fined hundreds of millions of dollars yet again. You wanna protect kids? Lock down their devices. But don't spy on the entire world.
"Think of the children!"