The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act is A Terrible Alternative to KOSA

One of my senators sponsored KOSA, the other sponsored this one, I literally can't win.

As a parent, and as a kid who grew up in the infancy of the internet/Social Media, I think there is a very fuzzy line here. Specifically, I'm fighting the concept that 'parents are 100% responsible'. I'm responding to Cookie, but not really disagreeing with them.

Kids have attempted to subvert their parents rules since the beginning of time. "I'm not touching you..." says the older brother in the car as his sister screams in annoyance. "You didn't say I couldn't have Ice Cream -- With sprinkles on it!"

I am an IT professional, focused in Cyber Security. I can lock down anything that touches the internet -- if it's in my house.

My kiddo, though, has access to a school chromebook. Guess how much control I have over that.

Chromebooks are fun. I have one, I have a family account for him, where I can control what and when he can access the internet. If he logs into MY chromebook with his SCHOOL account, he bypasses all of those controls. Hell, even his school chromebooks have a 'guest' option that bypasses almost all controls at the OS level. That was a relatively simple fix (for MY chromebook, not his school one) once I caught it, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem. All these internet connected devices tend to have their own flavor of browser with their own flavor of parental controls, if any. For any non-tech-savvy person to understand all the ramifications is unreasonable - and you'd better believe that the kids are more tech savvy than their parents and will find the gaps.

I don't claim to know the solution. And I fully agree with the article linked: 'Age verification' and 'Parental approval' are BAD (from a tracking standpoint, but also because kids and parents might not align on some issues) if not merely insufficient, but I do think there needs to be some culpability on the service provider to ensure that children are not subject to obvious( and here's the rub -- what is "bad") bad stuff.

If my kiddo turns out to be racist, that's partially on me, but I need help from other parties to ensure it wasn't because he tripped over a pokemon lets-play where the streamer was spewing hate-speech and he internalized that because he is 8 and takes everything for face-value. I literally cannot keep him off youtube completely, and even if I could, I would also deny him any bit of the cultural knowledge that would help him to make relationships in the real world. I have forbidden fortnight and roblox and you can't imagine the angst I get from just those. (And he plays them at friend's houses anyway)

The majority of the onus falls on parents, that is true, but kids are not rational and don't see the world the same way adults do. I need help ensuring that my kid is not subject to the trash pit that the internet is. There are too many ways and places for my kid to fall in to terrible things. The linked bill is terrible, but we probably do need something to help the average parent keep their kids away from large parts of the internet. ___

Governments have misused digital records about people in horrifying ways - IBM and the Holocaust article on Wikipedia

I think having a digital ID system is very important in the modern age but where it is required needs to be limited. You should not need to use it where it isn't strictly necessary. We have one in Finland too. You will almost entirely use it to use official services that would need your ID in person as well. In this proposal, the issue is not digital ID but how it would be used. First, where it would be used could compromise revealing too much of your identity when you want privacy and secondly and more importantly, it could compromise revealing your private actions to the government. Latter can move into highly problematic territory when criminalizing actions that should not be criminalized.

The EFF is notoriously kind of an extremist organization when it comes to privacy and any sort of tracking of people; not in a bad way though I think.

That's one of the concerns. Here's more, from https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

Mandatory national ID cards violate essential civil liberties. They increase the power of authorities to reduce your freedoms to those granted by the card. If a national ID is required for employment, you could be fired and your employer fined if you fail to present your papers. People without ID cards can be denied the right to purchase property, open a bank account or receive government benefits. National identity systems present difficult choices about who can request to see an ID card and for what purpose. Mandatory IDs significantly expand police powers. Police with the authority to demand ID is invariably granted the power to detain people who cannot produce one. Many countries lack legal safeguards to prevent abuse of this power.

Historically, national ID systems have been used to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and political views. The use of national IDs to enforce immigration laws invites discrimination that targets minorities. There is little evidence to support the argument that national IDs reduce crime. Instead, these systems create incentives for identity theft and widespread use of false identities by criminals. National ID cards allow different types of identifying information stored in different databases to be linked and analyzed, creating extreme risks to data security. Administration of ID programs are often outsourced to unaccountable companies. Private sector security threat models assume that at any one time, one per cent of company employees are willing to sell or trade confidential information for personal gain.