This isn’t a surprise, but it’s still frustrating. Gavin Newsom, who wants to be President some day, and thus couldn’t risk misleading headlines that he didn’t “protect the children,” has now signed AB 2273 into law (this follows on yesterday’s decision to sign the bad, but slightly less destructive, AB 587 into law). At this point there’s not much more I can say about why AB 2273 is so bad. I’ve explained why it’s literally impossible to comply with (and why many sites will just ignore it). I’ve explained how it’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. I’ve explained how the whole idea was pushed for and literally sponsored by a Hollywood director / British baroness who wants to destroy the internet. I’ve explained how it won’t do much, if anything, to protect children, but will likely put them at much greater risk. I’ve explained how the company it will likely benefit most is the world’s largest porn company — not to mention COVID disinfo peddlers and privacy lawyers. I’ve explained how the companies supporting the law insist that we shouldn’t worry because websites will just start scanning your face when you visit.
None of that matters, though.
Because, in this nonsense political climate where moral panics and culture wars are all that matter in politics, politicians are going to back laws that claim to “protect the children,” no matter how much of a lie that is.
Newsom, ever the politician, did the political thing here. He gets his headlines pretending he’s protecting kids.
“We’re taking aggressive action in California to protect the health and wellbeing of our kids,” said Governor Newsom. “As a father of four, I’m familiar with the real issues our children are experiencing online, and I’m thankful to Assemblymembers Wicks and Cunningham and the tech industry for pushing these protections and putting the wellbeing of our kids first.”
The press release includes a quote from Newsom’s wife, who is also a Hollywood documentary filmmaker, similar to the baroness.
“As a parent, I am terrified of the effects technology addiction and saturation are having on our children and their mental health. While social media and the internet are integral to the way we as a global community connect and communicate, our children still deserve real safeguards like AB 2273 to protect their wellbeing as they grow and develop,” said First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom. “I am so appreciative of the Governor, Assemblymember Cunningham, and Assemblymember Wicks’ leadership and partnership to ensure tech companies are held accountable for the online spaces they design and the way those spaces affect California’s children.”
Except that the bill does not create “real safeguards” for children. It creates a massive amount of busywork to try to force companies to dumb down the internet, while also forcing intrusive age verification technologies on tons of websites.
It puts tremendous power in the hands of the Attorney General.
The bill doesn’t go into effect until the middle of 2024 and I would assume that someone will go to court to challenge it, meaning that what this bill is going to accomplish in the short run is California wasting a ton of taxpayer dollars (just as Texas and Florida did) to try to pretend they have the power to tell companies how to design their products.
It’s all nonsense grandstanding and Governor Newsom knows it, because I know that people have explained all this to him. But getting the headlines is more important than doing the right thing.
Filed Under: ab 2273, age appropriate design code, california, for the children, gavin newsom
Seen some saying the SC will uphold this law but I really don’t think so seeing they blocked the Texas and Florida laws also any constitutional challenge will likely go to the Supreme Court of California first and the law apparently violates California own constitution.
As a parent, I am terrified of the effects technology addiction and saturation are having on our children and their mental health.
Well do your job and teach them how to be safe online, and teach them moderation, and other ways of entertaining themselves.
But, then they’d have to be with their own children instead of using YouTube as a babysitter! The horror…
Mike, I reiterate the call for a Sad But True button.
Almost makes me wish the recall vote worked… although… I doubt whoever would have taken over would have any qualms over signing the same POS legislation.
“As a parent, I am terrified of the effects technology addiction and saturation are having on our children and their mental health. While social media and the internet are integral to the way we as a global community connect and communicate, our children still deserve real safeguards like AB 2273 to protect their wellbeing as they grow and develop,” said First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
Ooh, so close and yet so far. Those safeguards already exist and they’re called parents, something she would know if she was a good one and wasn’t trying to foist the job off to social media.
If she’s concerned that her kids might run into problematic stuff online then it’s on her, not online platforms, to do something about that, whether that be imposing limits on where and how long they can be online, talking to them to discuss what they may run into or already have, warning them about what to do or not do, all the things a good parent should be doing in that situation but which are apparently beyond her.
It’s a strange thing to put forth a statement telling people how horrible a parent you are but I suppose when you’re defending a terrible bill there’s only so much you have to work with and only so many options to do so.
California: “Hello fellow websites of the internet! I want you to not spy on anyone under the age of 18, but I also want you to make sure that everyone should always be monitored, especially the people under 18 years. Do any of this wrong and we’ll rape you with lawsuits.” Website(s): “wait wha-“ California: “Y E S . “
Nefarious dudes: “You know, if we set up fake sites with age verification we’ll get free personal data!” California: “Hey, that’s illegal!” Nefarious dudes: “Your point being?”
Nefarious dudes: “You know, if we set up fake sites with age verification we’ll get free personal data!” California: “Hey… you doing this for the children?” Nefarious dudes: “Yeaahhhh, suurrrre.”
I’m fed up with private citizens having to fund litigation to protect their Constitutional rights from idiot legislators (and governors). In each of these cases, of which there many across the country, we get to pay twice: once for the government to defend their unconstitutional behavior and again to repeal their crap. Unfortunately, changing this situation would require action from the very people who are protected by it and those attorneys whose livelihoods depend upon it. (Meanwhile, a huge “thank you” to those lawyers who contribute to these challenges through their pro bono work!)
The United States of America was a grand experiment, eventually destroyed by the selfish, ignorant, and self-important.
SCOTUS has protected anonymous speech as free speech (whithin reason), and if I have to scan my face for each website or web session, that no longer makes me anonymous.
This has huge implications on … lets say dissidents or people critical of governments, inlcuding our own.
Let’s play a thought game, what if I have to use facial rec tech to visit a site that provides … let’s say abortions, or abortion related info, or making comments about abortion on Techdirt, and let’s say I live in Mississippi. Suddenly MIssissippi Authorities are going to be VERY interested in me and with facial rec, can identify me, and then take legal action against me, for what should be a legal activity.
This IS what is going to happen if these laws stand.
mind you this isn’t even implicating people NOT working for govts or people working for govts that are working outside their expected duties.
They already do a human version of face rec in China.
Japan has also passed a crazy verified invoices law that will most likely have face rec tacked onto it in future.
Some banks have gone further with face rec as well.
And if you get legal action, that’s the best possible result. What’s the worat possible result? A fucking SWAT team or a gang of brownshirts out to kill you.
Some banks have gone further with face rec as well.
There is a significant difference between showing your face to an institution where it is highly desirable that the ensure it is you, and showing your face to every site, and being identified and tracked while you use the Internet.
Counterpoint: I do not find the convenience of internet banking worth the price of letting the bank rely on a photo of me in their database to verify my identity.
Don’t use Internet banking then, or don’t complain when your account is hijacked. Sometimes a bit of inconvenience is worth it for added security, and it not as if you do not identify yourself to your bank when carrying out online transaction.
Don’t use Internet banking then, or don’t complain when your account is hijacked.
Or, y’know, banks could stop trying to collect that kind of information. They have plenty of other ways to verify someone’s identity.
Sometimes a bit of inconvenience is worth it for added security
Trade your liberty for (an imagined sense of) security and you’ll soon end up with neither.
I’d say the better response is to not use a bank that insists on using facial recognition for online identity verification. 2d photo facial recognition is crap and is more security theater than genuine security. Unless you are talking about some bank that only does business on phones with a 3d facial scanner (and possibly even then), facial recognition software is shit for providing genuine security or identification over the internet. Than again, the citation was simply ‘some banks have gone further with face rec’, so who the hell knows what that actually means.
They used to do that by forcing you to go to a bank branch.
Perhaps that should be revived?
I don’t get your point. Since phone calls can’t use facial recognition technology, it won’t stop people getting swatted.
The issue isn’t gett8ng Swatted.
The issue is, the government can and will abuse the data stored by these face rec apps to eliminate dissent. Assuming they don’t already have a web of informers already.
Despite the professionality of elite police units, they are still led by either police chiefs or political leaders. Though I must add that this is from my perspective, where the police ARE led by a politician.
I don’t want either the police OR the government to access these databases to assassinate OR sue me just because I have a differenr opinion.
Unless there are intrusive measure to validate a live video feed, a ring doorbell can allow other people to capture a video, use your face to visit that abortion clinic website.
Who would be likely to challenge this? I’m thinking of sending emails out to FIRE, EFF, some others about this. Anyone else you can think of?
ACLU might since there’s First Amendment issues involved.
Already EFF and Fight for the Future are complaining. Gavin has nothing to fear, he will change the law enough to make it constitutional before 2024. He will buy cameras for California computers before 2024. No one will want to ban there website out of CA because of the huge economy in CA.
I am not happy about this but do not think for a minute that this CA law will be found in violation of the constitution as the reason they made in mandatory in 2024 so they have enough time to make it constitution and pay off sites like Public Knowledge and Fight for the Future to stop there hounding as how bad this law is for all of us not just CA.
WE LOST AND WE HAVE TO NOW ACCEPT THIS NEW INTERNET. IT SADDENS ME TO SAY BUT PLEASE DO NOT LIE TO YOURSELF COME 2024. This will be the law of the land thanks to Gavin Newsome and California
You are assuming American politicians are… competent.
If it was Singapore, forget waiting till 2024, it would have been effectively immediately, and all the corps would have a buffer time to get their shit in order. 6 months at most.
While I have little faith in the Republican SCOTUS, they did slap down similar laws in Florida and Texas. And due process takes a wile.
That not how that works… that not how any of that works…
Quit shilling for those who would destroy the Internet by advising people to surrender.
How about ‘No’? Does ‘no’ work for you? Because that’s what you’re getting.
As I’ve noted several times in the past relating to other bills fight back and you might lose, give up and you ensure it.
If you want to just throw in the towel and declare that you’ve already lost then great, sit off to the side in silence and let those that are interested in fighting bills like this do so, don’t try to sabotage their efforts by telling people that it’s a lost cause and there’s no point in even trying.
Jeez, overdramatic much? Mate, I’m not happy about this situation either, but we now have a window of time to kill this law, before it becomes law. Besides, it was expected that Newsom would sign this into law. Even if he didn’t, the California assembly would’ve already voted to bypass him. So killing the law by legislative process is a no-go. Killing it or at least weaken it with the judicial system however is probably the best shot we have. Not all hope is lost. Yet.
You’re free to accept this all you want. The rest of us will be speaking up and complaining and making all the noise we can. Your willingness to surrender isn’t our problem.
I am not happy about this but do not think for a minute that this CA law will be found in violation of the constitution as the reason they made in mandatory in 2024 so they have enough time to make it constitution
….Wut? you are going to have to explain yourself some more here for me to buy in.
Most laws that affect how businesses operate have a period after passing before the law goes into effect to allow businesses time to prepare. Thats why I’d assume its pushed into 2024. ~2 years isn’t uncommon for things like this.
But i really have to question your “make it constitution”. There are 3 ways to ‘make it constitution’. An amendment to the law. You don’t pass an unconstitutional law and later amend it to be constitutional using the lead up period. Worse, amending the law to make it constitutional would result in a completely different law. So that can’t be what you claim
WE could ammend the CA and US constitutions. That will not get done by 2024. Assuming it could be feasably done at all.
And SCOTUS hasn’t been willing to let the similarly unconstitutional, and more partisanly favorable, laws in FL and TX to stand unopposed like they did in the TX abortion bounty case, suggesting it isn’t certain SCOTUS just declares the 1A issues moot to allow the law to stand.
California must be trying to join the EU.
Nah, just try and build a site compliant with both this and GDPR.
If people were to backwards engineer facial data they could do a lot of fun stuff with it. Example, criminals could out undercover agents with the right data breach.
Who’s going to crowd fund the grave stone?
The World Wide Web Created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1996 Killed by the California legislature in 2022 Gone too soon, but we had 26 good years.
Created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1996
Depending on what you count, 1989, 1990, or 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web#History
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it.