Larry Magid: Utah Bill Threatens Internet Security For Everyone (mercurynews.com) 89
"Wherever you live, you should be paying attention to Utah Senate Bill 152 and the somewhat similar House Bill 311," writes tech journalist and long-time child safety advocate Larry Magid in an op-ed via the Mercury News. "Even though it's legislation for a single state, it could set a dangerous precedent and make it harder to pass and enforce sensible federal legislation that truly would protect children and other users of connected technology." From the report: SB 152 would require parents to provide their government-issued ID and physical address in order for their child or teenager to access social media. But even if you like those provisions, this bill would require everyone -- including adults -- to submit government-issued ID to sign up for a social media account, including not just sites like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, but also video sharing sites like YouTube, which is commonly used by schools. The bill even bans minors from being online between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., empowering the government to usurp the rights of parents to supervise and manage teens' screen time. Should it be illegal for teens to get up early to finish their homework (often requiring access to YouTube or other social media) or perhaps access information that would help them do early morning chores? Parents -- not the state -- should be making and enforcing their family's schedule.
I oppose these bills from my perch as a long-time child safety advocate (I wrote "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994 for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and am currently CEO of ConnectSafely.org). However well-intentioned, they could increase risk and deny basic rights to children and adults. SB 152 would require companies to keep a "record of any submissions provided under the requirements," which means there would not only be databases of all social media users, but also of users under 18, which could be hacked by criminals or foreign governments seeking information on Utah children and adults. And, in case you think that's impossible, there was a breach in 2006 of a database of children that was mandated by the State of Utah to protect them from sites that displayed or promoted pornography, alcohol, tobacco and gambling. No one expects a data breach, but they happen on a regular basis. There is also the issue of privacy. Social media is both media and speech, and some social media are frequented by people who might not want employers, family members, law enforcement or the government to know what information they're consuming. Whatever their interests, people should have the right to at least anonymously consume information or express their opinions. This should apply to everyone, regardless of who they are, what they believe or what they're interested in. [...]
It's important to always look at the potential unintended consequences of legislation. I'm sure the lawmakers in Utah who are backing this bill have the best interests of children in mind. But this wouldn't be the first law designed to protect children that actually puts them at risk or violates adult rights in the name of child protection. I applaud any policymaker who wants to find ways to protect kids and hold technology companies accountable for doing their part to protect privacy and security as well as employing best-practices when it comes to the mental health and well being of children. But the legislation, whether coming from Utah, another state or Washington, D.C., must be sensible, workable, constitutional and balanced, so it at the very least, does more good than harm.
I oppose these bills from my perch as a long-time child safety advocate (I wrote "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994 for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and am currently CEO of ConnectSafely.org). However well-intentioned, they could increase risk and deny basic rights to children and adults. SB 152 would require companies to keep a "record of any submissions provided under the requirements," which means there would not only be databases of all social media users, but also of users under 18, which could be hacked by criminals or foreign governments seeking information on Utah children and adults. And, in case you think that's impossible, there was a breach in 2006 of a database of children that was mandated by the State of Utah to protect them from sites that displayed or promoted pornography, alcohol, tobacco and gambling. No one expects a data breach, but they happen on a regular basis. There is also the issue of privacy. Social media is both media and speech, and some social media are frequented by people who might not want employers, family members, law enforcement or the government to know what information they're consuming. Whatever their interests, people should have the right to at least anonymously consume information or express their opinions. This should apply to everyone, regardless of who they are, what they believe or what they're interested in. [...]
It's important to always look at the potential unintended consequences of legislation. I'm sure the lawmakers in Utah who are backing this bill have the best interests of children in mind. But this wouldn't be the first law designed to protect children that actually puts them at risk or violates adult rights in the name of child protection. I applaud any policymaker who wants to find ways to protect kids and hold technology companies accountable for doing their part to protect privacy and security as well as employing best-practices when it comes to the mental health and well being of children. But the legislation, whether coming from Utah, another state or Washington, D.C., must be sensible, workable, constitutional and balanced, so it at the very least, does more good than harm.
I've heard this song before (Score:5, Insightful)
"We can't be free because we have to be safe"
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase someone else, "We have to destroy this country in order to save it."
Re: (Score:3)
Americans are so proud of their freedom, and yet so quick to take it away from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no the 1st is on the line and state line issues as (Score:2)
no the 1st is on the line and state line issues as well.
Imagine that (Score:3)
a red state.
Re: Imagine that (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And Mormons.
Roughly half of Utahns belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not aware of the religious composition of the state House or Senate. This Church holds a lot of influence, but has zero legal bonds to the state government.
In the early days of the Church, a reported from the Chicago Democrat asked Joseph Smith Jr what made Mormonism different, and what Mormons believed. In his response to the newspaper, Joseph enumerated 13 Articles of Faith. The Eleventh Article of Faith reads "We claim
So a minor can get married at 16 in Utah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So a minor can get married at 16 in Utah (Score:5, Funny)
But according to the text of the bill, these time restrictions explicitly do not apply to a parent or guardian.
So by one interpretation, this bill seems to almost be encouraging minors to have children.
Which honestly isn't even that surprising to me, considering it's Utah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[So a minor can get married at 16 in Utah] so long as they stay off the internet at night until the are 18...
Let's give full context [utcourts.gov]. A minor can get married at 16 or 17 with some additional requirements. A parent must personally present written authorization. A juvenile court must approve (or deny) the marriage. The juvenile court may require premarital counseling or require that the minor continue school. If there is an age gap of more than seven years the application will be denied.
Let's expand this to the entire US [wikipedia.org]. 2 states (Hawaii and Kansas) allow marriage at 15 with parental consent; 23 states (including U
Actual support? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there actual support for any of this, in this form, or are these just a couple of the scores of nut job bills that get submitted every year? I know in our state we regularly get bills submitted to ban the letter "M" from the alphabet, make UFOs the state bird, or something just as likely.
Re: (Score:1)
Is there actual support for any of this, in this form, or are these just a couple of the scores of nut job bills that get submitted every year? I know in our state we regularly get bills submitted to ban the letter "M" from the alphabet, make UFOs the state bird, or something just as likely.
It is pandering to the Bible thumpers and busybody Karens of the world. What else is new.
Re: Actual support? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Both, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mormons follow the Book of Morman, not the Bible.
I heard the former [wikipedia.org] was pretty entertaining on Broadway ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Mormons follow the Book of Morman, not the Bible.
I heard the former [wikipedia.org] was pretty entertaining on Broadway ... :-)
The Church's response to the Broadway show was classic. The Church took out ads simply stating that "The book is better" and included a telephone number to request a free copy. The Broadway show got much wrong about our doctrine, but it was a conversation starter for those interesting in knowing what we really teach and believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What ever. Some poorly written book that has not been a useful tool for anything but holding doors open for over 2000 years.
I assume you're talking about the Bible? The Book of Mormon was published in 1820 - just over 200 years ago. The Christian Bible was canonized by the Council of Rome in 382. There's not much I can do to change your opinion, just correct factual errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Mormons follow the Book of Morman, not the Bible.
When the Chicago Democrat asked Joseph Smith about Mormonism, Joseph Smith enumerated 13 Articles of Faith. The 8th Article of Faith reads "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Since that time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints canonized two additional volumes of Scripture: The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants.
Re: (Score:3)
It is pandering to the Bible thumpers and busybody Karens of the world
It's pandering to the people who have children but can't effectively parent them. They'd rather turn the job over to the state because effective parenting takes work, and when would they have time to drink their boxed wine if they had to put in any effort to actually parent their kids?
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment is highly underrated. Most people don't pay attention to the mass of legislation submitted in their state every session.
Once in a while a particularly nutty bill gets some media attention like this one did.
My Utah state legislator is an embarrassing far-right psycho, and not even he's going to vote for this one.
Proposed by the "party of small government" (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how this bullshit is sponsored by the "party of small government", who only want to create another giant agency with sweeping powers to monitor all of us evil users who can't be trusted.
Re: Proposed by the "party of small government" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't find a bogeyman to get you reelected, just invent one!
Re: (Score:2)
>"Funny how this bullshit is sponsored by the "party of small government", who only want to create another giant agency with sweeping powers to monitor all of us evil users who can't be trusted."
Support for this type of law is certainly not universally in that party (far from it) and is also not a conservative stance. It is more of a religious-right type thing. The vast majority of conservatives I know would not support taking away anonymous access options or such intrusion into parenting or personal a
Re: (Score:3)
A similar system, preferential voting, exists in other countries and the invalid vote is very small: Number every box, use the numbers 1 to 11 (for example), use a number only once.
It's not a difficult set of instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of conservatives I know would not support taking away anonymous access options or such intrusion into parenting or personal autonomy.
Yeah....but that's exactly what they're doing by voting for the very things you claim the majority doesn't support. Obviously, they do.
The GOP and the Republican party could have gotten rid of Trump, but they didn't. And the blame for that falls squarely in the laps of the GOP and the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yeah....but that's exactly what they're doing by voting for the very things you claim the majority doesn't support. Obviously, they do."
There is a disconnect between what many conservatives want and what they are able to get. And the primary reason for that is that there is only a single party that represents them. You can't correctly or typically distill all issues into a single platform. Same thing with the liberals. So we end up, necessarily, with single-issue voters- they have to vote for the m
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Proposed by the "party of small government" (Score:5, Insightful)
You really need to turn Fox News off once in a while.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? The Republicans are fascist?
Yes, really.
Next question, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how this bullshit is sponsored by the "party of small government", who only want to create another giant agency with sweeping powers to monitor all of us evil users who can't be trusted.
And once they see the damn bill for that delusion, they aren't going to actually build jack shit.
Come forward with the plan to pay for it first...one would think this step would be obvious to a group of taxpayers.
no (Score:2)
this can't be real. no. not even in utah.
Big government at it again (Score:4)
Nothing says being a Republican like totalitarian intrusion into people's personal lives.
Clearly, the Republican motto is, "Government is here to help you."
Re: (Score:2)
Or taking away your parental rights when you don't go along with the school-sponsored gender-swap stuff.
They took away your rights to send your kid to a private school? Oh right, that didn't happen.
Public school in the USA is like public transportation in the USA. It's slow, smells bad, and probably doesn't go exactly where you want it to. It's just there so that if you can't afford anything better, you're not left completely stranded. And just like public transportation, you're also probably going to be sorely disappointed if you're expecting it to be free of minorities and gay people.
If that sort of thi
Re: Big government at it again (Score:2)
Also public education is American values to the core. The founding fathers had their differences but pretty much all of them agreed public education was necessary and vital.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Also public education is American values to the core. The founding fathers had their differences but pretty much all of them agreed public education was necessary and vital."
Agreed. But doesn't mean it has to lock your child's funding, and thus, effectively into a single public school based on your zip code, which is what happens for something the vast majority. You live in a bad area and can't afford a better area or private school? Well, too bad. Your children, and maybe theirs, and so on, will b
Re: (Score:3)
The funding is a big issue though. The concept of funding school via property tax exacerbates many issues, bad schools end up underfunded, wealthy schools get everything and more. Systems that pay off a per student, statewide fund are seemingly showing better results. Nevermind that when changes are attempted they get pushback for the wrong reasons (not that Common Core was perfect but the backlash to it was kinda silly)
This is also a place where America can steal some ideas from other nations. Europe a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did schools lose the ability to teach the difference between the words "loose" and "lose"?
Re: (Score:2)
I have posted here for maybe five years. But I felt a twinge of nostalgia, so I decided to check out the latest headlines.
So I see this headline and I go: This is totally crazy, so nothing has really changed about the world during my absence.
So then I see your comment and I go: This is totally crazy, so nothing has really changed in the discourse, either.
The competition-porn security blanket was a cute idea back in the early 1980s. I was there w
Re: (Score:1)
Why isn't it mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights then? The Founders would've been overwhelmingly opposed to Federal control of education instead of 100% state/local.
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't it mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights then? The Founders would've been overwhelmingly opposed to Federal control of education instead of 100% state/local.
Please stop talking. The Preamble to the Constitution [congress.gov] spells out what the purpose of the Constitution is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
See that bolded part? The part about promoting the general welfare? What do you think educating people is about?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh stop you imbecile. "Promote the general welfare" is not a catchall for "everything I want for free that they didn't specifically give me." You guys are just shameless liars every damn time. This is the third time today on various Slashdot stories someone has claimed those four words covered something very specific that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. When did that talking point go out? The comment I was replying to specifically says "the founding fathers all agreed that public education was necessa
Re: (Score:3)
If they had intended the Federal government to provide and control public education specifically it would've been mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights specifically.
You are missing something import here when we read the original Constitution today, context and language used when it was written. The meaning of the word "welfare" has narrowed a bit since it was written into the Constitution due to language drift over 200 years.
That you think people interpret "Promote the general welfare" means "everything I want for free that they didn't specifically give me" is entirely your interpretation. General welfare encompasses quite a wide range of actions the government can tak
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that the Founders intended for education to be a state matter under the 10th Amendment otherwise they would've specifically mentioned it like they do everything else they intended to be Federal matters. In many cases the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that states must treat all citizens equally under their respective education policy and legislation, bolstering the point. The idea that there is a federal fundamental right to education under the Constitution is hogwash and using t
Re: (Score:2)
>"They took away your rights to send your kid to a private school? Oh right, that didn't happen."
No, that is not what I was saying. It is a different topic- one where only those who can afforded to can partake in. One where more choice could be available if parents could take the money spent on their child to the school of their choice (be that private, charter, magnet, or a different public school). Anyway....
I am talking about schools that can confuse your child, then "flip" their gender and pursue/
Re: (Score:1)
I am talking about schools that can confuse your child, then "flip" their gender and pursue/support that without informing or even consent from the parents.
When I went to school, you couldn't even get them to give you some acetaminophen for a headache. You'd get no argument from me on the subject of schools staying out of things which should be entirely between a child and their medical caregiver. What I have a problem with are badly-worded laws which prevent age appropriate sex-ed curriculums from acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people exist, and discriminatory practices such as not allowing same-sex couples at a high school prom, or ridiculing/ostracizing LGBTQ+
Re: (Score:2)
>"What I have a problem with are badly-worded laws"
Agreed. Things went from "denial/deterrence" to "tolerance" to "promotion" in the span of just a few generations. That small period of middle ground was skipped over in record time and is way, WAY far in the rear-view mirror. And not just in schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Things went from "denial/deterrence" to "tolerance" to "promotion" in the span of just a few generations.
Yeah bullshit. We're still in between a mix of "denial/deterrence" and "tolerance" depending on where you are. You on the other hand seem to have entered a bizarre fantasy world.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Utah going to block the world? (Score:2)
How simple minded. How is Utah going to enforce this law on websites outside their jurisdiction? They can't even take The Pirate Bay down. If parents aren't monitoring their own kids, strangers will, and not in the way they intended.
I would recommend that first they try to pass a law limiting phone use to over 18. It would be simpler to implement. Stupid. But simpler.
Unconstitutional on its face. (Score:2)
this bill would require everyone -- including adults -- to submit government-issued ID to sign up for a social media account
First Amendment violation right there.
Re: (Score:2)
this bill would require everyone -- including adults -- to submit government-issued ID to sign up for a social media account
First Amendment violation right there.
Suit easily brought by people w/o a government-issued ID wanting social-media accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Suit easily brought by people w/o a government-issued ID wanting social-media accounts."
That would probably flop just as quickly as a suit about not wanting to show an ID for buying "adult products." Of course, THEORETICALLY for the latter, you are just verifying your age. But I have seen stores now *SCAN* such ID's, which means they are capturing who you are, what you are, and where you live. But I bet they "pinky promise" that data isn't stored and analyzed and shared and sold and never stolen or
Re: (Score:1)
The first amendment does not guarantee the right to say whatever you want anonymously - it only protects freedom of speech, the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It also makes no statement on how you are able to deliver those messages. There are already restrictions on other forms of communication, such as using certain frequency bands or transmitting at certain power levels, as well as limits on what you say - the classic one being restrictions
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't just fall under Freedom of Speech, it also falls under Freedom of the Press. And if you look at the history behind the First, anonymous pamphleteering was a huge part of the Revolution and pretty much guaranteed.
Not to mention that SCOTUS has held that anonymous speech is protected [mtsu.edu].
[POLITICS] Or course, given THIS Court's deference to precedents....[/POLITICS]
Time Slots (Score:1)
"The bill even bans minors from being online between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m."
Based on Utah's famous 1st in the nation porn use, these time limits are the actual reason for the bill, the rest is just camouflage. Minors take up too much bandwidth at night slowing down mature adult porn access.
Some say.
Re: (Score:2)
"The bill even bans minors from being online between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m."
From TFB (TF Bill) [emphasis mine]:
13-63-105. Limited hours of access for minors -- Parental access and options.
299 (1) Beginning January 1, 2024, a social media company shall prohibit a Utah minor
300 account holder from having access to the Utah minor account holder's account during the hours
301 of 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., subject to the other provisions of this section.
302 (2) Time of day under this section shall be calculated based on the Internet protocol
303 address being used by the Utah minor account holder at the time of attempting access.
So... web proxy? Out-of-state evening travel?
Re: (Score:2)
Expect a lot of subscriptions to VPN services from inside Utah...
Re: (Score:1)
"The bill even bans minors from being online between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m."
Oh good fucking luck with that. My parents couldn't even keep me off the computer during those hours when I was a teenager, though "online" back then meant dial-up BBSes.
Although in hindsight, if I had gotten a good night's sleep maybe I would've been able to stay awake in school and gotten a scholarship or something. Personal responsibility is a bitch, ain't it?
The right wing have never liked the internet (Score:3)
The problem is they didn't understand what the internet was and by the time they did it was well enough established they couldn't do much about it.
Now they're taking steps to rectify that mistake. This is one such step. Attacking net neutrality is another. The constant attacks on section 230 are all so another. The centrists for their part are dumb as a bag of rocks and think that they can outmaneuver the right wing on this point. Sort of like how citizens united was brought forth by unions who wanted to be able to spend more on lobbying and we're too stupid to realize they would be crushed by billionaires when it came to buying off politicians
Re: (Score:1)
This is Utah's right-wing, which is certainly distinct from what passes for right-wing ideology in the rest of the country. Heck, they even endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act because it codified the right of bona fide religious organizations to never have to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Should Obergefell be overturned, you can bet Utah isn't going to be performing any more same-sex marriages.
Given the opportunity, Utah would probably secede from the United States if doing so presented them wit
In another 10 years (Score:2)
And Jesus made it crystal clear that you do not need the Churches to worship. In lots and lots of ways.
The answer: Turn off Utah's internet (Score:1)
TOS: If you are from Utah, you are prohibited from accessing our systems. Change your laws and we'll be back.
Appealing to morons (Score:1)
STOP NORMALIZING KYC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think when cvs forces you to scan your id for buying alcohol that they're not scraping that data? Fat chance.
You really think the addict buying their booze and medicine in the same building, gives a shit? Fat chance.
Say No all you want. Like your opinion stands a chance against an endless sea of narcissists who want to be scraped.
Censorship (Score:3)
So the government knows who is posting nudie-selfies on Facebook. The obvious answer is for schoolgirls to steal an adult's password first: That will get dad into a lot of trouble.
The more databases of child customers (eg. Pearson education), there are, the more identity theft will happen: In this case, the child won't know until she applies for health insurance, a driver's license or a passport. How can she prove her identity was stolen when she doesn't have government-issued proof of identity?
Should a 17-year-old be banned from joining a Republican group on social media simply because their parents don’t approve of that party?
Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”
"Best interests" (Score:2)
I'm sure the lawmakers in Utah who are backing this bill have the best interests of children in mind.
I'm not.
The right are hypocrites (Score:2)
Ban kids from the internet (Score:2)
1) More bandwidth for the adults.
2) We would need less rules if children are no longer on-line.
Wow, that's borderline Canadian .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds great! Except for the time limits. (Score:2)
However the time limits are without a doubt an overreach that's just not going to pass.
There's just that pesky iss