Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States

Court Blocks California's Online Child Safety Law (theverge.com) 23

A federal judge has granted a request to block the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), a law that requires special data safeguards for underage users online. The Verge reports: In a ruling (PDF) issued today, Judge Beth Freeman granted a preliminary injunction for tech industry group NetChoice, saying the law likely violates the First Amendment. It's the latest of several state-level internet regulations to be blocked while a lawsuit against them proceeds, including some that are likely bound for the Supreme Court. The CAADCA is meant to expand on existing laws -- like the federal COPPA framework -- that govern how sites can collect data from children. But Judge Freeman objected to several of its provisions, saying they would unlawfully target legal speech. "Although the stated purpose of the Act -- protecting children when they are online -- clearly is important, NetChoice has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the provisions of the CAADCA intended to achieve that purpose do not pass constitutional muster," wrote Freeman.

Freeman cites arguments made by legal writer Eric Goldman, who argued that the law would force sites to erect barriers for children and adults alike. Among other things, the ruling takes issue with the requirement that sites estimate visitors' ages to detect underage users. The provision is ostensibly meant to cut down on the amount of data collected about young users, but Freeman notes that it could involve invasive technology like face scans or analyzing biometric information -- ironically requiring users to provide more personal information.

The law offers sites an alternative of making data collection for all users follow the standards for minors, but Freeman found that this would also chill legal speech since part of the law's goal is to avoid targeted advertising that would show objectionable content to children. "Data and privacy protections intended to shield children from harmful content, if applied to adults, will also shield adults from that same content," Freeman concluded.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Blocks California's Online Child Safety Law

Comments Filter:
    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday September 18, 2023 @05:55PM (#63858952) Homepage Journal

      Considering that it just blocks selling user data and targeting some ads to users, the real thing NetChoice fears is that adults might claim to be minors to protect their data and block offensive ads.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        It's trying to use the 2nd Amendment to constrain the 1st.

        The entire point of the thing was to bankrupt the gun industry.

        • by Anonymous Coward
          Are you thinking of California's ban on providing gun information to minors? Interestingly, the Ninth Circuit has recently reversed and remanded [latimes.com] on the grounds that "the state 'cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.'” There might be an argument that the two laws are complementary, though.
      • by Okind ( 556066 )

        [...] the real thing NetChoice fears is that adults might claim to be minors to protect their data and block offensive ads.

        And rightly so. This is exactly what I'm considering, given the widespread places my information goes in ad auctions.

  • And yoink, you no longer have any rights left!

    • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday September 18, 2023 @05:51PM (#63858946) Journal

      Silly Rabbit, rights are for the elites!

      We stopped having rights when in the name of the "emergency" of the day, politicians and bureaucrats REPEATEDLY suspend or rights, as defined under the US Constitution, the latest being the Fascist in New Mexico who is violating a law she signed into effect herself.

      She is still walking free as though it doesn't matter. The common people have no such luxury.

    • Yes, just imagine preventing corporations from gathering data from you, without restriction, & building profiles about you that they can sell to pretty much anyone they like, including law enforcement, spy agencies, & criminal organisations (This is what is actually happening right now, not in some theoretical scenario). What a restriction that'd be on our freedoms!

      Surveillance corporations are people. They have rights. If they want to create an Orwellian mass surveillance industry, who are mere
  • The law offers sites an alternative of making data collection for all users follow the standards for minors, but Freeman found that this would also chill legal speech since part of the law's goal is to avoid targeted advertising that would show objectionable content to children.

    I would get to see fewer ads? I feel soooooo censored!

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Exactly what NetChoice (very Orwellian name choice) fears. The only question if such a law happens is what do I as an adult need to do to create just enough concern that I might be a minor that my data is protected and the ads are blocked but not so much that they try to put me in teen and kid's chatrooms?

    • Fewer ads? Hahaha no.
  • That way they would be less prone to try and pass laws that are technologically questionable.
    (In my ideal world... which doesn't exist... drat...)
    • ... technologically questionable.

      It's not a politician's job to have competency on technology: We could demand everyone do that (and make school holidays shorter to enable more lessons).

      Their job is protecting the executive, the judiciary, the bureaucrats, business interests (eg. Healthcare, copyright), citizens and lastly, non-citizens. To that end, a business screaming "I'm a victim" is both a priority and an opportunity to claim he did something ('helpful'). The human consequences are secondary (eg. War on drugs, Tough on crime, W

    • by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Monday September 18, 2023 @08:25PM (#63859134)

      I disagree. Lawmakers should automatically be removed from office if any of their laws violate the U.S. Constitution. As it stands, there is no penalty for lawmakers to make illegal laws. That encourages them to do it over and over again. Cries of "won't anyone think of the children" should result in automatic removal from office and the gene pool without a trial.

      • I disagree. Lawmakers should automatically be removed from office if any of their laws violate the U.S. Constitution. As it stands, there is no penalty for lawmakers to make illegal laws. That encourages them to do it over and over again. Cries of "won't anyone think of the children" should result in automatic removal from office and the gene pool without a trial.

        At what point would said lawmakers be removed from the gene pool?
        I mean, there are so many laws on the books that don't make sense, some more that are untested, and a long list of laws that cross over into others. If I am a lawmaker who proposes a new law in good faith, am I in trouble for impeding an esoteric law that has long since been forgotten? If so, sounds kind of scary. If you are proposing due process, I could get on board... though I think there are already enough processes due that we'll never ge

  • by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Monday September 18, 2023 @10:36PM (#63859280)

    Among other things, the ruling takes issue with the requirement that sites estimate visitors' ages to detect underage users.

    Anybody remember this? [classicgaming.cc] Where's Al Lowe when you need him? He's GOT to have a Slashdot account. Where are you Al?

  • When I heard about this stupidity on the "Security Now" podcast a while ago, my immediate reaction was to just redirect all web requests from California (and other locations with similar silly requirements) to a "Childrens Playgound" page, explaining that this site does not have the capacity to hand-craft content suitable for Californians. So please enjoy the nice pink unicorn below and welcome back when you have booted the morons in power.
  • Power and responsibility should never be decoupled. And constitutional rights are power, because speech is power.

    You can't have it both ways - if you're acting in a capacity where there's no direct liability for your actions (that is, if someone sues you, they'd have to pierce the corporate veil) then constitutional rights shouldn't apply. Businesses aren't people.

    No personal liability should equal no protection.
  • This is an obama judge, so it's unlikely that calif will win this.

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Working...