| ▲ | tomrod 2 days ago |
| I'm surprised we're not seeing heaps of lawsuits here. Age verification in general violates privacy. |
|
| ▲ | Reason077 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nothing in this bill requires age verification. It just requires the OS to have a way to specify the user’s age (not necessarily an exact birth date), so that it can be provided to apps and websites that ask for it. |
|
| ▲ | NavinF 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| lawsuits for what? AFAIK you have no right to privacy in this sense |
| |
| ▲ | monocasa 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Legislating that all complex computing devices must give out your birthday (technically a "signal" of which bucket you're in, but sites are absolutely going to keep track of which bucket you where in, keep asking, and see when it changes). It's constitutional case law that there's an implicit right to privacy in the constitution. I don't see a law that you must wear a band with your birthday out in public passing muster based on that. I don't see why existing in cyberspace changes the inherent privacy question, and in fact makes it more meaningful given ease of automation. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's constitutional case law that there's an implicit right to privacy in the constitution. Constitutional scholar here! I mean, yes, that's true in a very general sense, but no court has held that age verification to gain access to a service, or even a device, is unlawful in practice. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Novice, but I'd argue that Dobbs has seriously eroded that case law. The right to privacy used to be pretty settled law, but now the foundation of that settled law is on sandy ground. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It was never really all that settled, IMO. Roe v. Wade (which is now dead) was built on a pretty shaky foundation that was inspired by emanations of privacy rights like the Fifth Amendment, in the absence of clear Constitutional language that made a privacy right explicit. | | |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not yet they haven’t. Not yet. |
|
| |
| ▲ | peri-cl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I'm surprised we're not seeing heaps of lawsuits here. Why do you think that is? |
|
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You don't have a right to privacy. It should be covered under the 9th amendment, but the supreme court generally just ignores that amendment. Edit: I see people don't like this comment, so here's an article about it from Wex law [1] (read under "Roe's Overturning"). The part of the Dobbs decision was removing a right to privacy and promising that it could be revisited in overturning other cases like Griswald. The 9th amendment has never been used to establish a right to privacy, but then I don't think the 9th has ever been used to establish any right. We've used the 14th in the past to establish that right and now it seems that's no longer good law. > While it is unclear to what extent that may have on the right to privacy in the current time; it is likely that the case law around this right will continue to evolve with more recent Supreme Court decisions. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_privacy |
| |
| ▲ | kccqzy 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think the Supreme Court as a whole wanted to overturn Griswold. At best, specific justices like Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurrence that he would want to overturn it, but that’s still far from the opinion of the court. Given the character of Thomas, it’s safe to say that most of his opinions don’t become opinion of the court. |
|
