Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
1 Like
“Hey kid! Get away from that playboy!” might’ve been normal when y’all were kids…. but I don’t think it’s that way anymore. The internet normalized how easy it is to see porn. There’s no more taboo about seeing the human body. Boys don’t have to find a dirty mag in the forest anymore. There will be places online without age verification for porn to be shared & seen.
I have more to say, but I find my position a bit indefensible in the way I want to go about it. I have weird feelings about it
1 Like
I haven’t listened to the episode yet, but I saw a report over the weekend on the robot games and it looked very disappointing, most of it looked less like robots and more like over-sized remote control toys, with the developers running along next to the “robots” with a gamepad in the hand, controlling their movements.
1 Like
While we may not have a national ID in the US, we do already have entities that verify EVERYONE’s ID before they surf the internet: the ISPs! I am quite certain most of the ISPs in the US collect everything, if not more, you need to provide when you setup an account as any government entity when a person goes to get an ID (REAL ID qualified or not) or passport.
Why not have the ISP include a flag that gets broadcasted to the internet about the user(s) age(s). By default, there should be no flag and anyone using that account can access the internet without restriction, because the US Constitution grants that right. Should the account owner want to restrict content on the account they opened, then they can log into the account and set restrictions for the account. And if it’s a family cellular plan account, the owner can set limits on individual lines if they want some people to have more or less access to the internet.
Sure, this doesn’t necessarily address people who find ways around the restrictions, however, technically all people should have unrestricted access in the US under the constitution. Sure, people can argue “that as long as I’m paying for your account, you will live by my rules,” that actually contradicts any argument that any minor who can afford to pay for their own internet access there should be any restriction on their access. But as long as parents are paying for a child’s access, there could be a flag set by the ISP about what content can be accessed.
But again, unless the ISP account holder sets any kind of flag, there should be no flag and the account should have unrestricted internet access.
1 Like
You’re suggesting that an ISP knows the names and ages of your spouse, children, and any guests you happen to have visit?
2 Likes
Also, they are supposed to know which person is using which device at the time that device accesses the Internet?
1 Like
From experience, any parental controls or restrictions you may implement on your home WiFi and SIMs go out of the window as soon as kids connect to their friend’s WiFi at their house.
I need to read Cory’s article. Leo said all age checks, including zero-knowledge didn’t preserve privacy according to Cory. But the panel then went on to say they felt that was acceptible, if a trusted intermediary checked your ID and the service was told only if you were old enough or not to access a service. This is what is happening in the UK with the age verification.
3 Likes
That is not at all what I’m saying. In fact if I had children, I would not want some random third-party claiming it can be trusted with information about my children. We all know that anyone who every collects data is susceptible of data breeches. What credit bureau hasn’t leaked your information? Even if the company claims to not storage the data, does project PRISM ring any bells and raise any red flags?
But above that, the constitution is clear: there shall be no law “abridging the freedom of speech” by the government. That means the government cannot restrict what speech you can engage in until you prove you can engage in it. Not only does that violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, it violate the legal precedent that you have to prove you are innocent of not violating arbitrary restrictions to exercise your constitutional right. And the government assigning a third-party to be the gatekeeper to exercise any constitutional right does not alleviate the burden from the government to not abridge speech. It just makes the third-party a government contractor and it has to abide by the same “no abridging the freedom of speech” as the government and all other workers wielding the power and force of the government.
However, offering account holders tools to voluntarily implement restrictions upon one’s own self and, by extension, anyone else using the account. Yes, age restrictions on a household ISP account (eg home internet) cannot differentiate between all persons connected through the account, you could have a flag set at that level that there are some users that are under a certain age (eg 13, 18, 21) that would restrict all traffic to those restrictions until some method (usually something that isn’t too effective like a pass code) is entered to bypass the restrictions. However, unless any restrictions are set, there should be no restrictions flagged by the account. Yes, that guests who visit someone and joins their internet access have to police themselves from seeing anything they would not want to see, but that is the fate of going out to other places. You may expose yourselves to the views of other people. Or if your host has restrictions, then you have to live with those restrictions until you stop using their internet.
However, when it comes to any cellular access you may give other people on your plan, the person paying for the plan can put restrictions on individual lines without having to disclose the people’s information (ig no restrictions for a spouse, under 13 for a child under 13, 18+ for someone over 18 but under 21). Yes, currently a person [read: child] could get around restrictions by simply putting their device on a wi-fi network, but for cellular devices, a setting on the device could be added for the restriction persists even when using wi-fi. For wi-fi only devices, such a setting would be more complicated, but probably doable.
tl;dr
As the Constitution is written, the government has no constitution right to pass a law restricting free speech, including online speech. As far as a parent’s right to restrict a child’s speech, it should only reach as far as the parent’s ability to place any restrictions. If the child can access outside the control of the parent, then that child has access to whatever online speech the child wants just like a child can swear like a sailor without repercussion so long as the parent cannot hear the child swear. Such is the nature of speech and the letter of the first amendment of the US Constitution. If you want to restrict what a child does, it’s on you to parent 24/7. You cannot infringe everyone’s speech just because there is some speech you don’t want your child to be exposed to.
Yes, all controls fall apart once a person leave the reach of the controls. Another example would be using another device that does not have the restrictions put in place by the parent (eg just using the friend’s device or public device). That is shortcomings of controls. But abridging the freedom of speech until someone proves their age is an abridgement of the freedom of speech, so even though some people think abridging the speech of everyone to protect the sanctity of “minors” (could insert another qualifier, but we’ll stick to minors), it does not change the fact you are violating the constitutional right of everyone (technically including the minor’s) for the government to not abridge speech.
If you want to restrict speech, you have to do it outside of law (or other government restriction), because it violates the rights of others. What the UK is doing may be legal in the UK, but that method violates the constitution in the US, so that method cannot be used the US.
That is why I suggested that there could be setting implemented by ISPs that could be used by the account holders to restrict access to people using that access point to the internet. However, the government cannot insist that the restrictions be on by default and it may be legally dubious for the ISP to enable the restrictions themselves, particularly if they want to be considered have certain immunities for their activities as an ISP. It would also give them an disproportionate right to speech online.
There may be additional thoughts you might want to read in my reply to PHolder before responding back to me. That reply is quite long, and so is my “tl;dr” section, so I am going to refrain from rehash it here.
Unrestricted Internet being the default is the opposite of what we have in the UK at the moment. However, I’ve yet to hit or notice any restrictions, and have not been asked to ID myself or prove age on any of the platforms I use - so I assume they are determining my age using some other method?
The controls you describe have been available for many years at the ISP, network and device levels, so those options are already available.
1 Like
Do you use Apple computers? If so, what happens if you use iCloud Private Relay? What happens when anyone uses a VPN in the UK? What method would reliably work to identify a user if you use iCloud Private Relay or a VPN?
No, Windows and Android here. I use a VPN when on public WiFi networks and occasionally to spoof my location when a news site is geo-restricted. The iCloud relay generalises your location, doesn’t it? You can’t spoof where you are.
1 Like
Well, there is a key difference between the UK and US in that the UK does not have a constitutional right that speech cannot be abridged by any law. So a law in the US that says you cannot engage in conversation the government deems “adult” without first proving your are old enough to engage it is unconstitutional and should be struck down as such. And the argument that the government put age restrictions on different aspects of life already so it can do it on speech is a farce. The activities that have age restrictions are different (eg driving, drinking). Those are not rights enshrined in the constitution so the government can pass laws restricting those activities.
The only way any government in the US can restrict any speech based on age would be by passing a constitutional amendment changing the US Constitution that would establish a age restriction on speech.
That is the part I don’t understand, they are stopping them using a platform, they aren’t stopping them using another platform aimed at minors or publishing their own speech or going out into a public park and speaking to people.
How is blocking access to YouPorn, for example, curtailing a minor’s right to public speech? They aren’t legally allowed to post to YouPorn until they are of age anyway and 99.9% of people go to such sites to consume, not to post their own content, which could loosely be classed as speech, I suppose.
For Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc. I can understand that better. They are stopping people posting, if they can’t prove they aren’t a minor. But they can still publish their own content on their own website, if they are so inclined.
As far as I know, the Constitution gives the right to free speech without the government stopping them, but it doesn’t say on what platforms they can speak on. If you look at Reddit, as an example, you can generally read most Sub-Reddits and post on them, without having to prove your age, but there are certain Subs that are restricte, here in Germany, I just have to click “I am over 18” to continue.
Therefore, anyone can use Reddit to post their free speech, unless they want to go into age related content, at which point they have to confirm they are old enough to see that content. Whether that is a simple “I am over 18” button or having to identify yourself with an ID card is secondary.
In Germany, for example, you could hold you ID card agains the NFC reader of the ’phone to identify yourself and the ’phone could then provide an “is a minor” or an “is not a minor” flag to the site being visited. That takes place on the device and isn’t registered anywhere and it could be made a requirement that you reregister your ID card every 90 days or so. If you don’t have a card (a legal requirement in Germany for citizens) or a passport (a legal requirement for all non-Germany citizens) or you are unwilling to register your card on your phone, that is your decision and you can’t see “adult” content.
For devices that don’t have an NFC reader, you could use a PassKey like process, where the site displays a QR Code and you can it on the registered device and it sends the confirmation over a back channel. Link the process to biometrics and the owner of the verified device has to release the information, so they are verified as being the person for whom the information is being released.
Obviously that is a secure as the current buying alcohol or tobacco for children by passing adults, but that is considered “good enough”, because that is illegal and if you get caught, there are serious consequences.
No, the UK falls under the EU charter for Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free expression. This is still enshrined in UK law (and all other countries in the EU) and the UK hasn’t repealed the law, yet.
Not every country has a constitution (the UK doesn’t, but Germany does, for example) and they have different amendments to the US, because they were set a different times under different circumstances, but that doesn’t mean that such rights can’t be enshrined in law.
There are some differences though. For example in the EU, it is generally illegal to use hate speech (that is not covered by the Charter of Human Rights), in fact hate speech, incitement to cause harm to a person, incitement to commit violence or murder against a person or minority and things like glorification of National Socialism or anit-Holocaust speech are all explicitly banned, moreover the Charter of Human Rights guarantees the right to live without persecution.
So you are pretty much free to say what you like, as long as you don’t persecute persons or groups of people.
As does having sex under age or with sex with minors, so accessing sites that display sexual activities, for example, and the sole purpose of “free speech” on such a platform would be to post images or videos of yourself having sex (as a minor, which is explicitly illegal) would at best be a grey area, but the poster would be performing an illegal act in any case.
I had a look at Cory’s article. His position is that nobody should trust an ID provider, as who knows if they are reliable, don’t go bust, leak data, etc., and they effectively control your access to the Internet. I understand this position, but the same could be said of password vaults, authenticator apps, tech companies you give your biometrics to, etc?
1 Like
Pretty sure all the password managers save a local copy on your devices so you can export them pretty easily, same with the authenticators (even those that sync via the cloud). Fear of this is why I always print a hard copy of my backup codes in a safe.
1 Like
Agreed.
But the IDPs don’t (or shouldn’t) hold your actual ID documents. You have that safe at home. Once validated, they store your details, which are then released as necessary when you authorise with a service or platform.
E.g. is this person over 18? IDP says yes, without releasing your age or date of birth. Does this person live at this address? IDP says yes, without providing the address etc.
But it does have to store all that personal info.
1 Like
I’m going to assume the two replies are due to some sort of length constriction (or maybe an afterthought you made a second reply), so I’m going to try to reply to both of yours so long as I don’t abut any length constriction.
I’ll defer the problem with a minor’s rights until later (I’m kind of adding this and the next paragraph after writing everything else, and I do discuss the problems with trying to restrict speech based on age elsewhere)
First, speech is a two way avenue. In the US, you have the free exercise there of and the right to enjoy the speech of others. And while you claim speech only flows one way in some places, speech actually is made in the other directions in a lot of those places. Even merely hitting the “like” button is a form of speech, not just analytics. You choosing not to listen to someone is a form of speech as well. And let’s not forget, many of sites accept money, and according to our supreme court, money is speech. (I know that sounds bizarre, but that’s how it is in the US. If you want to know more about why, confer “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)”)
You know how Leo is always bring up section 230 of the US legal code? Going after the platforms can be an end round to violate not only the Constitution but weaponize that section of law, because it deputizes the platform to moderate speech the government does not like. If platforms are acting as government agents enforcing unconstitutional abridgements of speech, section 230 may no longer apply to the platforms because they would no longer be private walled gardens, but de facto public squares. Also, being state actors due to a law, their moderation even within what is their private community may no longer be covered by the protection of section 230 because they are doing the bidding of the government, not merely upholding the community standards.
Are there topic people would prefer not to discuss? Yes, but people have a right to discuss any topic up to actual violation of any law. So discussion about what should and should not be legal is fully constitutional, but if the conversation turns to actively violating the rights of others, that’s where you could be accused of crossing the line into conspiracy to commit [insert crime] (eg where and how you can go to find illicit images; I’m not limiting this of images of minors or even necessarily pornographic images that can be used to harm another person. Also, think of sites that post arrest photos that shake down individuals to have the images removed even if no conviction resulted from the arrest).
Not only that, these laws encroach criminal behavior in and of themselves. They are arguably extortion racquets for turning the sites into government agents or face criminal investigation and/or prosecution. All so the government has the pretext of not being the one violating the constitution itself.
And I brought up the fact that freedom of speech is in the US Constitution, not as a jab that other places don’t have similar laws to protect speech, but as a fact that the US Constitution supersedes any law passed by the federal or states’ governments. With the fact that the first amendment simply says “the freedom of speech shall not be abridged (sic),” it makes it virtually impossible to pass any law even if law makers only target minors and claim it’s for their own protection. Short of passing a constitutional amendment, any law that says you have to first prove anything (age or otherwise) is unconstitutional. That’s why it’s constitutional to have a law against possession (and to a lesser extent dissemination) of minors engaged in various activities (I’m not certain it’s limited to sexual acts). Those laws aren’t going after speech. They go after the criminal acts depicted, usually with the assumption that a minor did not nor could not consent to engage in the act. Laws to protect adults have been passed as well, especially when it comes to sexual acts.
So I will stand by my primary point: in the US, laws restricting speech are unconstitutional, including this one. It does not matter that the lawmakers are claiming they have good intention abridging the freedom of speech. They are still violating the Constitution. And because this is a dragnet rather than targeted law only goes to suggest that the purpose of the law isn’t to “protect the children,” it’s to regulated speech they do not want occurring. Not to mention it directly abridges any adult’s right to engage in “adult” speech.
In this country, the Constitution is supposed to be absolute and any rights you have from it are just as sound. Also, you do not need to prove to anyone you have a constitutional right to exercise those rights. Exceptions could be argued for proving your age to serve as president/congress or your age to vote, but ages are explicitly written into the Constitution for those exceptions. That is why one cannot make an argument that an age restriction was ever intended for the first amendment giving the freedom of speech. Clearly the founders did feel there should be age restrictions for some rights, however, if the founders of the country didn’t want speech to be for everyone including the young, then they would have included age restrictions in the first amendment. (I know there probably is a better way to word this paragraph, but sometimes I have trouble wording things. This time, I think it’s better if I rephrase things so you can go back to try to decipher what I’m saying: basically because age is found for some portions of the the Constitution but not others, any right that does not include an age is meant for everyone, including kids. Specifically confer amendments 14 and 26, which are amendments, they restrict activity based on age, demonstrates how you amend the US Constitution, and specifically for how you amend the Constitution to change the age for a right)
So having to provide anything, whether that is a government issued ID or third party “token” violates your right to exercise your freedom of speech. We do not need to go into how different places enshrine any rights, my point was more about how rights are enshrined and that different governments give varying degrees to those rights based on how things are worded. In places where those rights are mere given through laws, it’s easier to change those rights because laws are easier to change than rights given in a constitution. In the US, it literally takes an act of congress (passed by 2/3 of each house), constitutional convention (passed by 2/3 of the states), or proposed by congress and passed by 3/4 of the states). Unless an age restriction of the first amendment amendment passes by one of those three ways, no law putting age restrictions on the internet in the US is going to be constitutional without the courts truly perverting what the US Constitution literally states about the abridgement of speech. (FYI, I intentionally typed amendment twice a few lines up because it would be an amendment of the first amendment, so typing it twice was warranted.)