A company contracted by the government to assess technologies for verifying the ages of online users says it can be done privately, robustly and effectively.
The ‘ID is required for beer and smokes’ example is misleading.
Most adults are NOT required to provide ID to purchase such items. Only those who look “Under 25 years” *may* be required to produce ID, and even then, that ID is NOT recorded. (An exception may the the NT for alcohol sales.)
Requiring the citizenry to provide ID to either a social media entity OR via a government controlled gateway is something that must NOT be tolerated.
A requirement such as this will ‘chill’ free speech, weaken our democracy, and undoubtedly expose our personal information to hackers.
It’s akin to allowing a person to purchase a pen, paper, envelope, and stamps - but then demanding the writer present both their ID and the unsealed letter at a Post Office, so that one’s written words may be recorded against one’s name.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt, it’s akin to “cutting down privacy to protect children from the devil”.
If you wish to argue in favour of this incoming law, do so *after* you’ve sent a copy of your ID to me.
Only those who look “Under 25 years” may be required to produce ID
Could you tell the guy at the bar I went to a week ago this, please? I got carded for the first time in years (not counting Safer Night Precincts where everyone gets carded) despite being—and looking—in my 30s.
The for profit social media companies profile users and know their demographics in great detail. Kids are obviously watching different content to adults. They are in an equivalent position to a bottleshop employee letting a 12 year old walk out with a carton of premixes and claiming not only that they didn’t know (false) but they want to keep not knowing because it is good for business. The industry only cares about money and has proven they can’t self regulate.
The only question is how to react. Not whether to react.
The social media companies are obviously scare mongering and spreading misinformation to protect their financial interests. We need to balance peoples very reasonable demands for privacy with holding predatory corporate behaviour to account. The most likely outcome will be a requirement to use a third party age verification service subject to Australian privacy laws to verify a new user to a service so that there is no need to provide that informtion to the social media companies. People willingly, enthusiastically give their entire life history to Meta along with all their friends, colleagues and family along with photos that allow biometric fingerprinting of their children for life. Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party seems a very reasonable request in comparison.
Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party
Who’s that trusted third party? There’s no third party that I trust with that information. I don’t want to have to tell the government “I use aussie.zone, and this is my username”. I don’t want it even without the username part. And I’d trust the government a hell of a lot more with that than any private company.
The problem with your comment is that you’re framing it as all about Meta. It’s not. It could have been. Maybe even should have been. Have it apply only to specific platforms designated by the Minister. But the way the legislation was written, it applies to all social media. Including Lemmy instances. Including Mastodon. Including old-school forums. This is why all sensible people were opposed to the bill when it went through within a week late last year. Not because the underlying goal is bad, but because it had been rushed through without proper consideration, and it was missing obvious problems that arose from the way it was drafted. Problems which could have been addressed, if they had done a proper inquiry and responded to feedback from experts, knowledgeable amateurs, and the broader public.
@shirro
The ‘ID is required for beer and smokes’ example is misleading.
Most adults are NOT required to provide ID to purchase such items. Only those who look “Under 25 years” *may* be required to produce ID, and even then, that ID is NOT recorded. (An exception may the the NT for alcohol sales.)
Requiring the citizenry to provide ID to either a social media entity OR via a government controlled gateway is something that must NOT be tolerated.
A requirement such as this will ‘chill’ free speech, weaken our democracy, and undoubtedly expose our personal information to hackers.
It’s akin to allowing a person to purchase a pen, paper, envelope, and stamps - but then demanding the writer present both their ID and the unsealed letter at a Post Office, so that one’s written words may be recorded against one’s name.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt, it’s akin to “cutting down privacy to protect children from the devil”.
If you wish to argue in favour of this incoming law, do so *after* you’ve sent a copy of your ID to me.
Could you tell the guy at the bar I went to a week ago this, please? I got carded for the first time in years (not counting Safer Night Precincts where everyone gets carded) despite being—and looking—in my 30s.
The for profit social media companies profile users and know their demographics in great detail. Kids are obviously watching different content to adults. They are in an equivalent position to a bottleshop employee letting a 12 year old walk out with a carton of premixes and claiming not only that they didn’t know (false) but they want to keep not knowing because it is good for business. The industry only cares about money and has proven they can’t self regulate.
The only question is how to react. Not whether to react.
The social media companies are obviously scare mongering and spreading misinformation to protect their financial interests. We need to balance peoples very reasonable demands for privacy with holding predatory corporate behaviour to account. The most likely outcome will be a requirement to use a third party age verification service subject to Australian privacy laws to verify a new user to a service so that there is no need to provide that informtion to the social media companies. People willingly, enthusiastically give their entire life history to Meta along with all their friends, colleagues and family along with photos that allow biometric fingerprinting of their children for life. Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party seems a very reasonable request in comparison.
Who’s that trusted third party? There’s no third party that I trust with that information. I don’t want to have to tell the government “I use aussie.zone, and this is my username”. I don’t want it even without the username part. And I’d trust the government a hell of a lot more with that than any private company.
The problem with your comment is that you’re framing it as all about Meta. It’s not. It could have been. Maybe even should have been. Have it apply only to specific platforms designated by the Minister. But the way the legislation was written, it applies to all social media. Including Lemmy instances. Including Mastodon. Including old-school forums. This is why all sensible people were opposed to the bill when it went through within a week late last year. Not because the underlying goal is bad, but because it had been rushed through without proper consideration, and it was missing obvious problems that arose from the way it was drafted. Problems which could have been addressed, if they had done a proper inquiry and responded to feedback from experts, knowledgeable amateurs, and the broader public.