safe act – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "safe act"

from the will-it-never-end? dept

It never ends with these moral-panic-driven, blatantly unconstitutional state bills “for the children.” The latest, from New York state Senator Andrew Goundardes and Assemblymember Nily Rozic was announced this week with direct support from NY Governor Kathy Hochul (who has been pushing for such unconstitutional bills for a while now, mainly to redirect attention away from her own failures as a governor).

The bills, the New York Child Data Protection Act and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act (which doesn’t appear to have text live just yet), incredibly seem to be taking a page from equally censorial bills that have already been ruled unconstitutional in places like Arkansas and California. The SAFE bill is actually quite similar to a bill in Utah, which hasn’t been challenged yet, but I have to believe it will be soon, and it’s equally unconstitutional. Incredibly, the Data Protection Act itself cites the bill in Utah AND California’s Age Appropriate Design Code even though that bill has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge! Incredible.

When you’re introducing a bill by citing as inspiration a bill that has already been declared unconstitutional, you might just be a grandstanding fool.

Either way, this shows again how this issue isn’t a “red state” or a “blue state” issue, but politicians across the political spectrum are cynically stomping on the rights of children and adults to get headlines claiming (falsely) that they’re “protecting” the children.

As with Utah’s bill, New York’s SAFE Act will require parental consent for anyone under age 18 to have a social media account, which means that if you’re an LGBTQ+ child and your parent disapproves of your identity, they can cut you off from your community support. I understand why Republican governors like Spencer Cox might want that, by why are Democrats in New York pushing for such bills that will do such harm.

It will also require “default chronological feeds” rather than algorithmically generated feeds, even though a recent study of chronological feeds found that they expose users to more misinformation than algorithmic feeds.

So Kathy Hochul wants kids exposed to more misinfo?

As for the Data Protection Act, it will require age verification (since it says sites have to treat those under 18 differently), and, as we’ve seen with the rulings in California and Arkansas (not to mention multiple past Supreme Court rulings), that’s just blatantly unconstitutional as it ends up limiting adult access to content as well.

But it’s quite clear that the intent of this law is not about actually protecting kids, because any expert can tell you that these laws will do a great deal to harm kids. These laws are about getting the politicians pushing them positive headlines. And to that effect, it’s already working. The NY Times gave them a big old headline, without one ounce of skepticism that the bills might not actually protect kids.

Filed Under: age verification, andrew goundardes, arkansas, california, kathy hochul, new york, new york child data protection act, nily rozic, parental controls, protect the children, safe act

Author Of SAFE Act Insists He Didn't Mean For It To Cover WiFi… But Won't Promise Any Changes

from the well-that-helps dept

Yesterday we posted on the no-discussion-necessary rapid approval of the SAFE Act, and highlighted some of the more questionable problems in the bill. While the post was pretty clear about why we (and others) believed it covered WiFi (the broadly worded language in the bill, which we had in the post), we’ve been getting some emails from folks who say that we twisted the legislation out of context. It probably doesn’t help that whoever submitted our post to Digg (and got it Dugg onto the front page) did so in a misleading way, making it sound like our post said something it did not. However, with so much interest in this bill, it’s worth digging a little deeper. The bill’s author quickly responded to the charges by saying that it wasn’t intended to cover open WiFi networks, but the bill itself doesn’t make that clear — and the courts tend to go by the text of the law, rather than intent (intent can be helpful, but it’s much less important). The author of the original article has a clarifying conversation with the author of the bill, asking him if he’ll change the text to make it clear that open WiFi is not covered — and he gets no promises. Instead, in typical “protect the children” fashion, the guy just goes on about what an awful problem this is. The thing is, no one is denying that child pornography is a terrible thing. What we’re worried about is incredibly broadly worded bills that were clearly written and approved in a hurry with little oversight, and which do not appear to take into account the unintended consequences of what they’re putting into law.

Filed Under: congress, protect the children, safe act, wifi

Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children… And Make Open WiFi A Huge Liability

from the congress-folks-at-work dept

Congress was apparently busy on Wednesday moving forward with incredibly bad laws that are designed to look good to certain constituents, but are highly questionable in real terms. We already discussed the new PRO IP bill, but the House also rushed through approval of the SAFE Act, which is one of those ridiculous bills that everyone feels compelled to vote for to “protect the children.” Only two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans, one of them was Ron Paul). As Declan McCullough’s report makes clear, the backers of this bill rushed it through Congress for no clear reason. They used a procedural trick normally reserved for non-controversial laws — and made significant changes from an earlier version, never making the new version available for public review prior to the vote.

So what’s so awful about the law? Well, like most “protect the children” legislation, it goes way overboard in terms of what people are expected to do, and like most legislation having to do with technology, seems utterly clueless about how technology works. The bill would require anyone providing an “electronic communication service” or a “remote computing service” to record and report information any time they “learn” that their network was used for certain broadly defined illegal activities concerning obscene images. That’s double trouble, as both the illegal activities and the classification of who counts as a service provider are so broadly defined. McCullough notes that anyone providing an open WiFi network, a social network, a domain registry or even a webmail service probably qualify under the law. Glenn Fleishman describes what the law could mean in practice, points out that anyone who runs an open WiFi network for the public is now basically required to snitch on anyone they think may be doing anything deemed “illegal” in this act, including viewing or transmitting certain obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings. As Fleishman notes, it “sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could qualify.” Even worse, part of the snitching is that beyond sending a report and the images to the gov’t, you’re supposed to retain the “illegal” image yourself — which would seem to open you up to charges of possession as well if you somehow screw up (if you follow everything exactly to the letter of the law, you are granted immunity).

If you don’t snitch on anyone suspected of viewing or transmitting these images, then you, as the network “operator” are suddenly liable for huge fines. Honestly, the liability is so big that anyone offering WiFi is probably better off no longer doing so. This is one of those laws that politicians love to pass, because they think it makes them look like they’re protecting children — when all they’re really doing is creating a huge and unnecessary headache for all kinds of service providers, from open WiFi operators to social networking sites to webmail offerings. But, of course, it moves forward — with no public scrutiny and no discussion — because almost no politician wants to allow a politician to accuse him or her of voting “against” protecting the children.