An interesting analysis of the recent Meta settlement ...
Meta's settlement with 52 state attorneys general is a bad deal for all internet users, and especially for teens. That's what we said the day the settlement was announced.
In this post, we go through the Settlement's provisions in detail and explain why that is so, including how:
The Settlement embeds age assurance technology and age-gates into Meta's social media products and requires all users—minors and adults—to undergo a rights-threatening age estimation process
The Settlement places severe restrictions on Teens that can largely only be modified by the Teens' parents and only then in exchange for giving their parents a ton of information about their online community and usage;
The Settlement seems to empower the attorneys general to enforce Meta's content restriction on "age inappropriate content," categories that Meta itself has had trouble administering without excluding information about sexuality, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and abortion medication;
The Settlement actually requires Meta to collect, analyze, and retain more information about its Teen users—when the pressure should have been on Meta to diminish its surveillance capitalism. And the Settlement in no way limits the attorneys general from seeking the user information for their own law enforcement purposes.
Note: A chunk of the settlement addresses unauthorized users under age 13, and Meta's obligations to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Meta policy has banned users under 13 since the company opened to the public in 2006. Aside from the age assurance frameworks that support both those and the other parts of the Settlement, the under-13 provisions are not addressed in this post. Those provisions essentially require Meta to detect and delete all under-13 accounts.
Source: EFF
What are your thoughts on this ? Do you think this will this work as intended ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05, @12:59PM (5 children)
Go ahead and write restrictive laws around Meta and all of Meta's platforms. Teens will just accelerate their departure from Meta. Cool. It's a steaming pile of shit anyway.
This is happening at the same time that Windows is going to incorporate age verification into Windows setup.
What I see is the proverbial "perfect storm". Young people may be a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. They can find other platforms outside state control, and they can figure out how to install Linux and other OSs. Go ahead, put the pressure on the kids, and they'll find their own solutions.
I don't know why this hasn't all happened already.
Sadly, I figure the kids are more likely to find workarounds, and stay on the same platforms, using the same operating systems. It all depends on how much pressure the state capitols puts on the kids. I'm sure that young people won't be compliant though.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Saturday September 05, @03:19PM
The wheels of justice turn slowly. On "Internet time", though, it looks like they're reaching the finish line once the second or third race is well underway.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 06, @02:12AM
>Windows is going to incorporate age verification into Windows setup.
Pardon me while I rage uncontrollably at the absurdity. WTF does the age / identity of the person setting up a Windows machine have to do with ANYTHING, much less the age of the person using it? I suppose Windows is moving toward online accounts for all, required by law, which will only make me abandon them harder than I already have.
It's a Personal Computer, mine, in my possession, in my castle, no I don't feel the need to identify myself every time I access it.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Bentonite on Sunday September 06, @07:09AM (2 children)
Can you please link me to this Linux OS you write of?
Last time I checked, the Linux project has only provide a kernel and some tools (util-linux), although kernel developers love going around and calling themselves OS developers and demanding credit for what other people did.
If the kids only have an ipad or an Android device, they can't install a replacement OS (although with Android, they're already using Linux as their kernel, although something crucial is missing).
Even if the kids have a laptop or desktop, installing another OS is extremely difficult, due to restricted boot making it hard to boot software.
If the remote attestation and other plans succeed, the ability to disable restricted boot will be taken away and remote servers (including websites) will refuse the ability connect, without remote attention cryptographically confirming that the thin-client is running an unmodified, approved, proprietary OS.
Due to how schools teach to obey authority and don't teach freedom and almost anything on tracking devices leads to more of the same, the future is bleak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, @01:22AM (1 child)
I run a Linux distro, that does use some Gnu tools. But, the kernel is what makes everything hum. Without the kernel, no amount of tools is going to do anything for me. If/when a Gnu/Hurd distro is ever released, I may take it for a spin. I'll want to compare it to Linux.
As for remote attestation - do you realize what a huge freaking MOUNTAIN of machines are being made obsolete by Windows new requirements? No one needs remote attestation to install whatever they want on old machines. When the time comes, someone will figure out how to defeat that attestation even on the newest machines. The arms race doesn't end just because Microsoft dreamed up yet another scheme to prevent people using their computers as they see fit. Neither the state capitol nor Washington D.C. decides how I use equipment in my own home. Some people need to be reminded of that fact.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Tuesday September 08, @08:22AM
You cannot run a distribution of the kernel, Linux alone - such kernel will panic() on boot, if it cannot find an init (as without at least one other program to run, Linux is totally useless).
You run a GNU distro that is primarily GNU, with Linux added (plus likely a massive amount of actively harmful bloat).
GNU is far more than mere tools.
While GNU does provide tools, such as GNU coreutils, awk, grep, sed, bc and far more, those are only a handful of the GNU packages.
There are hundreds of GNU packages, that supply a complete OS; https://www.gnu.org/software/ [gnu.org] (which includes multiple kernels, including, but not limited to; GNU Linux-libre and GNU Hurd).
Meanwhile, the Linux project only develops a kernel and a few tools (util-linux) - thus correctly, your GNU distro does use some Linux tools.
I reckon all of GNU's tools and also GNU bash could be made to work without a kernel if you really wanted to.
Without a free compiler (GCC), a free binutils (GNU binutils), a free buildsystem (GNU make), a free shell (GNU bash), a free parser generator (GNU bison), a free calculator (GNU bc), free archivers (GNU cpio and GNU tar), a BIOS (i.e. GNUboot), a bootloader (i.e. GNU GRUB) and an editor (i.e. GNU Emacs, nano, ed, poke), you cannot even think about writing a kernel, let alone using it (see Documentation/process/changes.rst in Linux for all the GNU software and software with GNU dependencies that Linux needs to work *at all*).
GNU/Hurd distro's (and also GNU/kFreeBSD distro's) have been a thing for decades and give the same GNU/Experience.
It would be easiest to give Debian GNU/Hurd a try in qemu; https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/qemu.html [gnu.org]
As GNU's primary kernel is GNU Linux-libre (a project where the 75%+ of proprietary software, without source code from Linux is removed and you get a free GNU kernel), little work has been put into Hurd;
- VESA video modes are only supported so far.
- The scheduler isn't very optimized and there are still bugs - clearly it's not yet functionally as good as a kernel with thousands of developers, some full-time.
- The Debian GNU/Hurd distro ships an old version of Xorg and an unpopular DE, due to very low resource consumption and framebuffer support.
But still, you boot up, there's all the essential GNU packages right there - you got GNU bash, GNU nano and the Church of GNU Emacs and also the software for the GNU OS and those operate the same (as most programs don't care about what kernel you use, those care about interfacing with GNU's libraries and the libraries for the GNU OS).
There is also Gentoo GNU/Hurd; https://www.gentoo.org/news/2026/04/01/gentoo-hurd.html [gentoo.org] ("Gentoo Linux" is an error - correctly it's Gentoo GNU - you choose whether to install Linux, or Linux-libre or Hurd during the install process).
I clearly pointed out that remote attestation was a future concern.
Yes, if you can get past restricted boot (that often breaks booting from flash drives, even if restricted boot is disabled), sure you can install whatever OS you want (but you're not allowed to modify the UEFI on any recent computer, as there are cryptographic signatures to stop you from replacing the malware with free software (such signatures also effectively stop the user from mitigating security vulnerabilities themselves, but such signatures do nothing about attackers exploiting vulnerabilities to hijack the UEFI and run some additional malware)).
But being able to install an OS on a computer won't do you any good, if to get online, or connect to a governmental website, the computer needs to cryptotraphically attest that it's running an unmodified, new enough, approved proprietary OS.
Yes, for a while, people will likely find a way to break the garbage cryptography and thus allow unauthorized computers to connect etc (despite how breaking digital handcuffs is illegal in the USA).
google and apple were the companies to implement remote attestation first - although m$ was one of the first to have the idea, so far m$ has failed to be competent enough at writing software to have a working restrictions scheme like apple's and google's.
The cat and mouse game may never end, but if microsoft, apple, google and more manage to bribe (lobby) governments hard enough to make it illegal to connect unauthorized devices (such as real computers) to the internet (for ""security"" against ""AI"") and they also work out how to finally correctly implement cryptography, that will successfully make it cryptographically impossible to connect to (at least) many websites (access restrictions so far has been limited to slop you don't want to see anyway, but soon enough that will include governmental websites etc, that you are mandated to use), without a device that is running an approved backdoored malware OS.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Saturday September 05, @01:19PM
It's right here [techdirt.com]
Being the dumbest idiot in the land and president of the US should be 2 different people.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Saturday September 05, @02:36PM (3 children)
That depends on what the intent is. Is this going to work? No. I have doubts. My hope for this is that teenagers, and their parents, will just abandon Meta/Facebook and all the other similar sites and shun them like the plague. But I doubt they will. So in that regard it will probably just feed eveb more data and analytics machines.
Which I guess is counter to what was intended. Or at least a unwanted side effect.
I fail to see how this "age estimate process" is going to work unless you are fine with an approximate age. For someone old it might not matter all that much as we are lumped into the 18+ bucket. But for advertisement they probably want to know more, and they do. After all 18 year old me is not interested in the same things as current me.
But I doubt they'll nail with accuracy if someone is 13 or 14. Unless they have actual data to tie it to. So good luck with that. Considering they have done fuckall since they opened their digital gates to weed out the underage but in the most crude ways.
I guess this is why Zuck needs to get his AI on. Cause all this extra surveillance or monitoring is just to much of a task for some mere mortals. Even if you hire them by the bucketload in some third world country and work them nonstop until they get PTSD.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 06, @02:15AM (2 children)
How are they going to (realistically) tie these age brackets to accounts without birthdays?
I know, the "dumb fucks" just input their birthdays when asked, but what's stopping them from lying (like I have for every Farcebook and similar account I ever opened in the last 30 years...)
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday September 06, @11:30AM (1 child)
In some regard the problem is that they have been lying in the forms, like any normal person. After all if a kid is not allowed to have access but if they put into the form that they are a few years older all was fine. No checking.
Realistically they need to tie accounts to actual physical people. One way or another. They can add layers of "verification" but there are always counters to them. Such as then sending messages to their phone etc. Most normal people don't use burner phones. While they might not find out whom you are they can just save that and eventually they might tie that to whomever pays the bill or have the subscription.
Eventually they could probably just harvest all the data they gather, which is probably what they do with this age approximation process, and start to compare them. Such as if you share connections with people and eventually the network grows and if they can just positively identify one person they will go from there. Or if they can start to identify people in pictures, if they have another picture database such as drivers licenses or something such.
Their apps probably harvest your entire phone and contact book to, it was probably something people agreed to when they clicked yes there at some point in time. The phone is probably what snitches on its user/owner the most. It ties you to locations. It's not to hard to figure out where you sleep at night and assume if it happens in the same place over and over that is your home and then via other data sets its probably not to hard to tie you down to an identity or at least make that identity a lot more fleshed out.
What they need is an actual second system running with good known data to compare with to try and identify people. Considering the amount of data in one form or another they have gathered over the years and the processing power they have I'm sure they can tag in people from pictures now and if people also identify people in said pictures they'll eventually get a pretty good idea of who the user is. The longer it goes, the more data they have, the better the guess becomes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 06, @02:16PM
The phone is definately what snitches on its user/owner the most. Secret Service, KGB, Interpol and Mosad in your pocket with GPS, ears and eyes at all times and a broadband data connection that can stream to full fidelity databases. No, I don't think anybody is listening, live, to even 1/1 million at any given time, but varying amounts of that data is archived and accessible for later fishing expeditions.
Meaning... roughly 2-3 TB of online storage per person in the world. Enough for every single human on earth to have their own personal HD feature length film, plus special features, of data about them stored and accessible from anywhere on the globe in milliseconds. Then we can talk about tape backups....
If you have anything to hide, hiding it from the phone should be the first priority. I have 3 Google home speaker devices, obvious spies in our home, but in real terms they worry me much less than our phones.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @03:10PM (3 children)
Or it wouldn't have happened. But nice pocket change, eh? Whatever, just more appeasement toward(s?) bad people, not going to stop anytime soon.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aafcac on Saturday September 05, @04:04PM (2 children)
Yes and as usual it's not the people. FB is largely dead, but I'm concerned about this spreading to other websites now that the public square is effectively dead and there are fewer and fewer independent sites. (And no the irony there isn't lost on me)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @08:13PM (1 child)
The anonymity of said public square has been a threat to corporations and nations alike. Never have they been closer to finally stamping it out. Meta lobbied for age verification laws.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 06, @02:21AM
The farcical anonymity of the public square drives people to behave as if they are anonymous - even when they are not, in practice - which is virtually always on the major platforms. I'm sure it has been interesting fodder for social "scientists" for decades now. John B. Hard signs up for his Farcebook account as Libby R. Tard and has himself all kinds of laughs... Then he signs up for another account as James B. Wood and tries on another persona, then he signs up his "real" account and thinks that they're not all linked for the data analytics people. Remember when Facebook quit publishing subscriber counts as they passed 7 billion with no signs of slowing...?
To have real secure identities, we'd have to communicate with tools capable of real security, and the data trawlers absolutely abhor that idea. Ironically, for real anonymity, you need even more sophisticated open trusted and independently auditable systems.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]