It's going to take some more searching to find an article that shows what age verification looks like for newer Apple accounts. According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account and/or a credit card in your name in Apple Pay it might be enough to confirm you as 18+.
It links to fca.org, gov.uk, and racfonudation.org. I think the goal of this page is activism rather than journalism though, and the donation links are a much more apt way for privacy activism funding than ads like on that news site.
Agree to disagree for the same reason the guidelines don't say anything about citing claims in comments: What you're looking for where claims are cited for a full background is provided, is not the only valid way to write something worthwhile on the internet.
You insist this piece should be in the form of a cited and fully explanatory journalistic article when writing such a blog post signals no such goal. The intent here is to alert for support, not to be a news source about the topic. Adding the news piece is great for the conversation here, it's just dunking on the post for not being that type of piece itself is overly dismissive.
This is the third (or fourth) update with this age check and the only one that doesn't enforce credit card (I don't have one), driving licence (I don't have one) or national ID card (I don't have one) as the only methods of verification.
Absolute shambles of a rollout (and I'm hoping it was UKGOV requirements, not just Apple being braindead.)
I get accused of AI writing a lot on Hacker News lately. It’s alway when I take time to read the article, research the subject, and come back to write a thoughtful response with additional info to add to the topic. There’s something sad about how that looks like AI to some people, I suppose compared to the average expectations for what a comment section should look like?
I've been thinking about true/false positives/negatives on this a lot lately and trying to see if there are any non-obvious signals in current AI/human text that impact those.
GP's comment doesn't seem to have any of the "obvious" signals most look for, would you be willing to share what signals you latched on to for this conclusion?
> Ah, the classic "aPpLe cAn dO nO wRoNg" comment from a thread full of nothing but Apple lovers.
Hey, this is an awful comment from someone who has been on HN long enough to know better. That random capitalization thing is a cheap form of sneering, as well as being a tired old internet trope, and the whole comment breaks this guideline:
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
This site is only a place where people want to participate because most people make the effort to do better than this. Please do your part to push the standards up rather than drag them down.
So, are you also going to do anything about the top comment being fake news? It literally says something completely that is not true. Minus the "sneering", I think the validity of my comment remains.
Please don’t try to deflect from your own disrespectful conduct with this kind of “are you going to...?” goading. We don’t moderate on the basis of such charged qualitative judgments as “fake news”. We uphold the guidelines. If someone is wrong, point out how they are wrong, in the conversational style the guidelines clearly call for. Doing it in this sneering and hostile way only weakens your point and trashes this place.
You were asked to keep to the guidelines just a few weeks ago, particularly relating to making swipes at the community, and you committed to doing so: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47243319. We wouldn't be having this interaction if you had kept to that commitment, nor if you had respectfully heeded the reminder I posted. This place only continues to exist because enough other people conduct themselves respectfully.
Sure, I admit I wasn't aware the alternate caps was even a thing in the guideline. If you go into my comment history further, I've done it way more times, but never been flagged before (which is why I wasn't aware it was against the guidelines). Also, I didn't insult the community in my comment (please show me where?). I just pointed out that OP was conveniently choosing to ignore certain key facts in the original article just to craft a narrative - I'm sure you know this, but many people here own Apple stock and sometimes they have a conflict of interest, which really irritates me when they don't disclose and do such shady stuff.
But, let's leave that aside - isn't what you're doing now exactly considered as the very deflection you accused me of, earlier (deflection)? ie. I pointed out something you were wrong about - you just went into pointing out something I did in the past that was wrong instead of addressing my core point - that you didn't have to insult me to enforce the guidelines. You could have done so, without.
Again, as you have found out, I've interacted with dang, I don't know what happened to them, but I never was insulted by them before - despite consecutive flags (and I never repeated those mistakes).
This will probably be sneaked in, in more countries under the banner of age verification since more countries are proposing laws than ban children younger than 16 from social media.
I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices. And that Apple and google are “forced” to do it. They of course have their own gains.
While I agree with the general argument that iOS shouldn’t limit the user’s freedom, it looks to me like Apple actually put in some effort to make this as privacy-preserving as possible.
The article somewhat glosses over it, but you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£. That one is widely accepted and it doesn’t contain unnecessary information that might cause trouble if it leaked (like for example a passport does). And 1 in 3 adults (according to the article) have an Apple account that’s old enough so that they will automatically be unlocked, no further documents needed.
The article strongly accuses iOS of being a walled garden, but I don’t see that as a particularly strong argument after iOS being locked down for ~20 years now.
And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
The PASS card features your name and photo, it's an ID by any other name.
You must have a very warped perspective of social reality if you think it should be acceptable to force every adult to show their papers before they can do anything in modern society - and all that just so you can avoid your parenting duties. And I say that as a parent.
I'm not worried about my parenting duties. I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not. That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
And yes, the PASS card has name and photo. But no adress, no social security number or secret ID or equivalent. If your PASS card leaks, nobody can create a bank account in your name. If your passport leaks, they can. That's the difference in privacy, seen in action.
> I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not.
Different families can choose to raise their children differently. Please let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids.
There are parents who are more strict with their kids than you are in ways you don’t agree with. I guarantee you wouldn’t be happy if they were lobbying to force your kids to obey their chosen set of rules because they didn’t want “inequality”.
zero countries give infinite freedom about how you raise your kids. and if too many parents fail at something probably government should do it for them.
it's like drinking age. you can't send your kid for a beer. you are free to buy beer and let your kid drink a glass. same here. if something is not accessible to the kid directly you can still show it to your kid. you are the parent
> let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids
like somebody is taking it away?
you are still free to make your choices, just like with feeding your kid beer or giving them cigs. It's just a healthy default is now applied to average kid for whom parents don't care to make choices. Why do you keep arguing and moving goalposts?
I am not parent comment, and I'm also not in favour of restrictions for all/most people in the name of "the kids" for all the reasons covered in this debate. Invasive age verification feels even worse.
But I gotta tell I am not looking forward to deciding which is worse when my little kids grow up and I either have to:
- let them use TikTok (or whatever it is by then) and suffer what I know to be an insidious poison
- make them be on the outside of the circle and suffer exclusion by their peers because they don't get any of the memes
I've been the only kid in class without the new 18-rated Call of Duty game, or indeed a games console to play it on. At the time, it sucked. In retrospect I totally agree with my parents, young children should not be playing games about shooting each other! (Of course other parents may disagree)
CoD was only the new hotness once every couple of years. TikTok can make something the new hotness every week.
My only real hope to escape this dilemma is that enough other parents in my cohorts realise how poisonous TT is and the problem goes away... I can't say I'm optimistic.
> At the time, it sucked. In retrospect I totally agree
Being parented essentially means rules applied that are in your long term interest despite your own preferences (typically shorter term). When I had to go to bed on time, it sucked. When I had to eat my vegetables, it sucked
The kids who didn't watch soaps, didn't have phones, didn't get to see 15 films... etc, were fine in the end. This isn't a new concern. Every other generation of parents has done it.
Or depressed and suicidal because of being socially excluded in formative years. Let's roll the dice, what's the worst that can happen, more mentally sick adults? Clearly if we look around this is not backfiring in any way.
Imagine if smoking was allowed and considered cool. You basically must your child never allow to mingle with an average kid. If you are too busy at work, if you are single parent, or need a work trip, 100% you come back and your kid is a smoker.
All because what other families are free to decide and they don't give a fuck.
Do you want that world back? Do you have money to live in a gated house with private school and full time nanny and stuff so you can raise your child separately from the average? Must be nice
But are you not worried about the democratic precedent that treating citizens as de-facto minors and arbitrarily withholding information, with little to no oversight, will set? And your kids seeing the fully realized end of that slippery slope ?
What if your government decides that anything LGBT is taboo for kids[1]? Or that informations about say, ongoing genocides, is deemed too graphic for kids.
Won't that also increase the blast radius to people who didn't bother justifying their age, even though they supposedly also have the right to vote?
If your passport leaks, they can [create a bank account]
This seems like a country-specific problem. In Japan, even if opening an online bank account, a photocopy of a passport is simply insufficient to pass identity verification. Additionally, most country passports contain an IC chip that can be used for attestation. Any eKYC system that does not attempt reading data from the IC chip is fundamentally broken.
It should be a total non-issue for photocopies of passports to get leaked.
Those people are not going into the bank with photocopies of passports, they are creating fake passports for that, all they need from the photocopy is the number to put in the fake one.
And in many countries this days you can create a bank accounts using the bank app and all they ask for is a photo of your ID/Passport, now you dont even have to create a good fake for that.
You should be concerned about a government issuing these ridiculous and dangerous controls on what you can do in society. Not whether, within that dystopia it is fair to submit in one way or another.
Also, kids understand perfectly well that different parents have different rules.
I don’t think the government or Apple should be responsible for protecting you from mopey teenagers by blocking free internet access for everyone just so that it “is fair”. Are you even hearing yourself?
Your phone should not have any business whatsoever collecting, checking, or verifying the age of the person using it.
> And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
If you cared about your children, you would be against this. Otherwise you're fighting against your children's future; their privacy, their sanity, their ability to participate in a functioning democracy.
I’m a parent and I think all of these arguments are ridiculous. You shouldn’t need the force of government across the nation to set boundaries for your own kids.
It’s also getting kind of silly to pretend that these laws are going to stop those other kids’ parents from simply age-verifying their phones for them. These fantasies where the government passes a law and suddenly every parent and child in the country settle into the exact same social norms are just that - fantasy.
Also parent in the UK - strong disagree, it’s part of our parental responsibilities to set this up, not doing it is the same as not watching a newly walking baby on the stairs (/etc). Compromising everyone’s privacy for a subset of lazy parents is a failing of society.
Relatively few newly walking babies have peers whose parents allow them to use stairs unattended making them feel socially excluded for not also using stairs unattended.
Ignoring the existence of peer pressure and calling parents lazy is a failing of individuals.
This is not going to get rid of peer pressure. That existed long before kids had phones and it will continue to be a problem with this.
Parents should be there to teach rather than just restrict. Kids will need to learn how to recognize and deal with peer pressure at some point.
Also Apple definitely benefits from peer pressure generally. Their devices are seen as status symbols, the dreaded green bubbles, maybe more. I wouldn't expect them to do anything to actually improve things in this area.
> because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
That’s a strange argument. The government or anyone doesn’t have a mandate to ensure everyone has the exact same experience. Differences in upbringing are normal. I didn’t have a TV growing up while most of my friends did. It might have felt unfair at the time, but it wouldn’t justify the government forcing my parents to get one -> overreach.
Thanks for your comment. It's good to hear from people that want this, as to understand which voters politicians are relying on for support for passing this at a legal level.
However, I fundamentally and ideologically disagree with your views on the matter, and I think your views are incompatible with a free society with checks and balances, and frankly, draconian.
iOS is a walled garden and it will be as strong an argument as ever, regardless of how long iOS has been a walled garden for. Also, don't you see how having to buy your privacy for 15£, even for 0.01£ is ridiculous? And to your last point - a parent can easily bypass all that bullshit if they wanted. They could let their kids use a normal computer without any walled gardens. What's to stop them from seeing 4chan or motherless or anything like that? Nothing. And nothing will unless you force all of society into your dystopic vision of a safe world for kids.
You forgot to mention that the (provisional) driving licence can be issued to 16 year olds.
Full (A1) licence to 17 year olds. It's a proper, full licence, just for a limited power/displacement. Looks proper, "adult".
I don't have iPhone in my household but but I'd very happily ask my nearly 17yo child to try to pass as an adult using their licence to point to the utter stupidity of this.
And to address your last point - the difference is not that Apple is barring adults from the huge portion of the internet (and no, I'm not talking about porn, to address inevitable strawman) unless they submit to the intrusive check.
What proves for me it's malicious, subversive pattern is that it hasn't been widely advertised.
The right way to do it would be to NOT turn it on, but allow to switch "I'm not an adult" option in the settings and then require age check to turn it off. It would require a parent to do it in their child's phone ONCE.
The way it is now is stupid, hostile, so utterly British Government in a way. Great job.
> you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£
If there's one thing the UK internet has taught me is that some brits will throw a fit for every minor inconvenience they face
"Dole appoint at 10am 30min from home!?" Means it's an unsurmountable challenge from them as they might be hangover from the previous day and what do you mean I have to pay the bus fare to get there?
Of course the privacy point stands. But their complaint is not about privacy, is about the effort
The west believes "Data is the new oil". The west can't compete with China or India in the amount of data their citizens can generate because they are the world's most populous country. China already has a huge head start because it has already been collecting and data-mining its citizen's data. Attempts to make stronger privacy laws and sovereign data laws in many western countries will also impede data collections. But state sharing of data - through 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes and 14 Eyes - along with BigTech data could give the west an edge. (The west already has partial access to indian data because it leaks through lax data privacy laws, ill-thought indian government policies and BigTech. But Chinese data is truly firewalled.)
So yes, you are right that we will see our democracies embrace more and more control over us citizens, limiting our rights, while our governments emulate China. This is unfortunately because the west believes that being a leader in technology is essential to retain its powers.
Every government is preparing for the Third World War, which requires controlling the information infrastructure to enable domestic counterintelligence operations.
It competes with China. But it's not like we can easily switch countries because of stupid laws, so what remains is to challrnge them. It only gives the wrong ideas to other wannabe autocrats.
I can get you residency in a number of countries in about 30 to 60 days. It’s remarkably easy to change countries an American friend of mine has over 15 residencies leading to over 10 passports. No citizenship by investment non sense either.
only in the global north who want to you to spend half your time slaving for them. in the countries with privacy rights, and where slavery remains outlawed, the residency requirements are pretty minimal.
Will this really do any good when this kind of legislation magically appears through lobbyists simultaneously across the West? Let's not forget that blocks like the EU also have significant bullying power via trade policy.
I can only speak for the USA, but the first-past-the-post voting plus a very strong bias towards rural areas and former slave-owner states, results in a government that poorly represents any of its constituents.
I don't know if even right-wingers like this age verification crap, maybe they put up with it from Republicans so they can vote against abortion and I put up with it from Democrats so I can vote for abortion.
Of course, if you vote for a third party, you're spoilering your side. Every country is a group project run by underpaid people to try to please millions of uninformed haters. Still better than dying of dysentery, I guess.
Many of the red states are passing age verification laws to view porn sites. However 100% of the sites are either ignoring the laws if they are not in the US or easily accessible via a VPN.
Vote with your feet, with an American passport you can choose from a multitude of countries each offering the politics of your choice. You can even mix and match.
It's weird to see a North-African country let by a man investigated for war crimes and genocide, country that recently passed death sentence laws only for the indigenous population only, suggested as the last bastion of the western civilization?
I'm very happy my country is not bundled together with.....that.
I think this is trying to fix the wrong problem. As a soon to be parent I am not that worried about supposedly adult content, but I am genuinely concerned about peer pressure into joining various social media platforms and 4 year old with phones streaming cocomelon to my kid.
I have older kids. I worry about creeps masquerading as teenagers.
On the other hand, if this moral panic reaches a point where manipulative political content is forbidden for some age bracket, I see a benefit for older people.
I activated ADP as soon as it was available here, and I was hoping things would work out, and friends and family who missed the opportunity would be able to use it by now as well.
I’m not pleased with this move, but its implementation has me wondering. I barely keep up with anything these days so I was taken by surprise after I updated. And, probably due to the decrepitude, I was annoyed for a few days that my phone had been nerfed and I had to roll back, before trying probably the first thing any younger person locked out would.
I’m curious, if there’s anyone who hasn’t verified a spare account, if they would point their phone at things? It might take a moment, and there’s no real feedback until the phone accepts your evidence. People have said it takes other people’s credit cards and ID, but I’m wondering if it’ll accept a pet passport too, or really what the limit is.
Thinking that Apple would urgently reconsider anything because of some angry blog post is rather naive. Until this s tangibly affecting Apple's finances the probability they are giving a single shite is approaching zero. Pixel phones and GrapheneOS stonks up.
As much as I'd like to see Apple fight this, shouldn't the blame be placed on the governments for compelling this, rather than on Apple? What is the alternative, pulling out of the UK?
While I'd love this hard-line approach, as it might make other countries think twice, the stockholders probably wouldn't love it.
> Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 apply to websites and online services — not to entire phone operating systems.
Doesn't this go back to companies like Meta lobbying to push the responsibility to the OS instead of taking it on themselves? I read they did that in the US, I can only assume they did it in the UK as well.
Frankly, I'd rather have Apple qualify me as over 18 one time, and pass a simple boolean to a site vs having to upload proof (an ID, photos...) to every website I want to use. This may be the lesser of two evils.
So this is interesting. Apple's an incumbent, not some new disruptive company. What I mean to say is this isn't like a rideshare company that goes in burning money to build public sentiment while lobbying the politicians.
Everyone knows who Apple is. I'm certain UK gov has been in constant communication with Apple on how this is to be rolled out. They would have communicated intent and received feedback from Apple as to how they'll ship it. It's within their capability to lobby/advertise opposition to laws like this but logical option in Apple's position is to insist on a common framework countries could use so they don't need to build a different verify for every country.
I really do think Apple's primary opposition to not having E2EE is they didn't want to deal with the cost of complying with requests and the liability of hosting illegal content. That's the real pushback, because it's ongoing cost/liability to them.
Fuck the bureaucrats responsible for this. I’m so sick of being completely powerless to fight any of this, being forced to sit and watch. Writing to my MP changes nothing. Signing petitions does nothing. The Government doesn’t give a fuck. They’ve had so many golden opportunities to differentiate themselves from the Tories and all they’ve done is carry the torch.
I will vote for any party that promises to rewind this crap, I don’t care what other policies they have. Enough of the nannying.
The real problem was never just checking age imo. It was deciding who deals with mistakes, who gets blamed when access is blocked wrongly, and how a normal user is supposed to fix it.
Moving that to the phone makes it look cleaner, but mostly just pushes the mess into a layer people have even less control over.
It's funny, I'm less worried about supposed "adult" content than I am "age-appropriate" content that these platforms push onto kids. Anyone remember those creepy as fuck Spiderman Elsa videos pushed on youtube kids?
Or hell, even "normal" content like MrBeast to me is infinitely more damaging to a kid's brain than porn or whatever other thing this policy bans. I'd much rather my kids regularly browse /b/ rather than consuming the brain rotting shit that MrBeast puts out.
One silver lining this is finally going to push me to switch to a dedicated camera and some niche unrestricted Linux or graphene device as a phone. Goodbye iPhone. (I say this as someone with an Apple account old enough to auto “qualify”, how lucky).
LineageOS doesn't come close in terms of security, however it's an amazing project for all the hardware abandoned by the vendors -- however I wouldn't go as far as telling people they're using their phones wrong and don't actually need to use 90% of they apps they use :)
What do people expect when handing over their computing to a for-profit company? You can use various services where you knowingly hand over some of your data or offload a computational load, but with Apple it's like you're handing off the keys to your house, the plumbing, the electric wiring, the bricks, the alarm system and everything else to 1 entity. And you get upset when you realize you're just renting a property with less assurance you'd get from a slumlord in the ghetto. And for a lot of people that Apple property is their main computing property. Not a vacation home away from their desktop. Once they're evicted, once the slumlord disables the heating, increases the price of water or forbids you from inviting people, you have no other recourse.
This has more to do with the UK government than a "for-profit company". Apple has been one of the biggest forces pushing back against this kind of thing forever, at least in the US where companies still have rights.
No it doesn't. The UK government instituted age checks for social media, Apple didn't like the UK government and enabled age checks for the OS, wanting to blame the government for it. It's done this sort of thing before.
signal did everything right on their end. encrypted push, content only shown if the user opts in. the weak link is iOS caching decrypted notification content in an unencrypted sqlite database that survives app deletion. the 'e2e' in e2e encryption ends at the os, not the app.
For the moment, governments claim to want only she verification "for the children". Let's be honest: governments like the UK and Germany (to name two) are prosecuting people for posting unwanted opinions, or - heaver forfend - for insulting politicians.
To pursue those prosecutions they need identities. Age verification is the first step towards requiring your real identity in social media.
The comment that you are replying to is saying that it's not exclusive to Apple and gives a non-Apple example. Your link has zero instances of the string "Apple". What am I missing.
> The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc
You can blame the government as much as you like, but this is actually has to do with british nature, they have an obsessive need for control, and if you worked with some you will immediately notice how they will try to make all sort of policies and shit to control the other party, all while they pretend they are open about hearing other’s opinions. So it kinda backfired, what goes around comes around.
My favourite example of this was when Thatcher passed a law banning the broadcast of Sinn Féin. The BBC responded by dubbing the audio with actors’ voices. So you would watch the news and see an interview with Gerry Adams, but you would be hearing an actor speak his words, meaning the BBC were complying with the law by not broadcasting his voice.
Apple isn't doing shit except for following the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
I will edit this to say, since I'm sure people are out there who will make this point: yes, I read the article. I disagree with it. "Not required by the OS" Well that isn't going to matter much when Apple gets hit with a big fat fine for "allowing" underage users on social media.
Could there not be a reason that Apple made this choice involving their own legal risk? Sometimes what a law actually requires is up to what happens in court in the future.
I'm guessing Apple made the calculation that doing this was cheaper than litigating it. The slop submission in OP makes the claim that the law doesn't apply, but I skimmed it already and came to the conclusion it could apply and it will be up to the courts to make the precedent.
'internet services' is extremely broad and could include apple's own appstore, icloud services, maybe even their browser could be considered software acting on behalf of a provider.
With all this being said, I do think Apple probably could have fought it and even if they had to leave the UK market, they'd still be fine. They rely on China and South Korea to manufacture their devices so they would not be fine without these markets.
It's probably related to the fact that Apple doesn't see itself selling devices, you don't really buy and own the phone. You rent a device from them and the Apple account is the doorway to that subscription plan.
And I would rather have the _choice_ whether to prove my age to Apple or not. I think if it were optional, with the additional option of "share my age with websites & apps", nobody would have an issue with it.
They made it mandatory already, while still not being required to do so.
It would be exceptionally simple to NOT make it mandatory and automatic, and to allow a parent (to make Apple's lie more like actual concern) easy to flip on.
From what I see it also doesn't distinguish between, say, 11 year old and 17 year old. These two ages have vastly different.....development levels. Just to put it in perspective: 16 year old can legally drink alcohol in a pub, can literally have sex with anyone without anyone getting into trouble but apple decides they need to be maintained like primary school child?
I know some of my kids' classmates are barred by their parents from attending any sex ed/relationship classes. Today Apple proudly joins the most backwards and restrictive sects, just because (no, it's not the law).
I don't access any age-restricted content as far as I know, I refused to bend over to Bluesky and instead use alternative services to access my DMs.
Like, come on. That's a very hostile, unnecessary move from Apple, likely a secret agreement with the government of the UK.
This article is not great. It doesn't link to anything other than itself and two of those links are "donate" and "subscribe".
I found this Apple Insider page with more information and an actual description of how it works, from someone doing journalism instead of soliciting donations and subscriptions: https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/02/25/how-age-verificat...
It's going to take some more searching to find an article that shows what age verification looks like for newer Apple accounts. According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account and/or a credit card in your name in Apple Pay it might be enough to confirm you as 18+.
It links to fca.org, gov.uk, and racfonudation.org. I think the goal of this page is activism rather than journalism though, and the donation links are a much more apt way for privacy activism funding than ads like on that news site.
I was looking for links or information about the age restrictions, not the other topics they were injecting.
An article about the age restrictions should at least have some supporting evidence, or at minimum some screenshots like the article I linked.
Agree to disagree for the same reason the guidelines don't say anything about citing claims in comments: What you're looking for where claims are cited for a full background is provided, is not the only valid way to write something worthwhile on the internet.
You insist this piece should be in the form of a cited and fully explanatory journalistic article when writing such a blog post signals no such goal. The intent here is to alert for support, not to be a news source about the topic. Adding the news piece is great for the conversation here, it's just dunking on the post for not being that type of piece itself is overly dismissive.
>According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account ...
I can confirm that is the case.
Finally
This is the third (or fourth) update with this age check and the only one that doesn't enforce credit card (I don't have one), driving licence (I don't have one) or national ID card (I don't have one) as the only methods of verification.
Absolute shambles of a rollout (and I'm hoping it was UKGOV requirements, not just Apple being braindead.)
For me, a 12+ year old account wasn't good enough.
This sounds weirdly like it was generated by AI.
I get accused of AI writing a lot on Hacker News lately. It’s alway when I take time to read the article, research the subject, and come back to write a thoughtful response with additional info to add to the topic. There’s something sad about how that looks like AI to some people, I suppose compared to the average expectations for what a comment section should look like?
I've been thinking about true/false positives/negatives on this a lot lately and trying to see if there are any non-obvious signals in current AI/human text that impact those.
GP's comment doesn't seem to have any of the "obvious" signals most look for, would you be willing to share what signals you latched on to for this conclusion?
[flagged]
> Ah, the classic "aPpLe cAn dO nO wRoNg" comment from a thread full of nothing but Apple lovers.
Hey, this is an awful comment from someone who has been on HN long enough to know better. That random capitalization thing is a cheap form of sneering, as well as being a tired old internet trope, and the whole comment breaks this guideline:
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
This site is only a place where people want to participate because most people make the effort to do better than this. Please do your part to push the standards up rather than drag them down.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So, are you also going to do anything about the top comment being fake news? It literally says something completely that is not true. Minus the "sneering", I think the validity of my comment remains.
Please don’t try to deflect from your own disrespectful conduct with this kind of “are you going to...?” goading. We don’t moderate on the basis of such charged qualitative judgments as “fake news”. We uphold the guidelines. If someone is wrong, point out how they are wrong, in the conversational style the guidelines clearly call for. Doing it in this sneering and hostile way only weakens your point and trashes this place.
[flagged]
You were asked to keep to the guidelines just a few weeks ago, particularly relating to making swipes at the community, and you committed to doing so: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47243319. We wouldn't be having this interaction if you had kept to that commitment, nor if you had respectfully heeded the reminder I posted. This place only continues to exist because enough other people conduct themselves respectfully.
Sure, I admit I wasn't aware the alternate caps was even a thing in the guideline. If you go into my comment history further, I've done it way more times, but never been flagged before (which is why I wasn't aware it was against the guidelines). Also, I didn't insult the community in my comment (please show me where?). I just pointed out that OP was conveniently choosing to ignore certain key facts in the original article just to craft a narrative - I'm sure you know this, but many people here own Apple stock and sometimes they have a conflict of interest, which really irritates me when they don't disclose and do such shady stuff.
But, let's leave that aside - isn't what you're doing now exactly considered as the very deflection you accused me of, earlier (deflection)? ie. I pointed out something you were wrong about - you just went into pointing out something I did in the past that was wrong instead of addressing my core point - that you didn't have to insult me to enforce the guidelines. You could have done so, without.
Again, as you have found out, I've interacted with dang, I don't know what happened to them, but I never was insulted by them before - despite consecutive flags (and I never repeated those mistakes).
This will probably be sneaked in, in more countries under the banner of age verification since more countries are proposing laws than ban children younger than 16 from social media.
I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices. And that Apple and google are “forced” to do it. They of course have their own gains.
> I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices.
A “ban” is literally government interference.
Pick a lane.
interference on the individuals or interference on companies / service providers?
You can’t interfere on one without interfering on the other.
>Pick a lane.
You are either with us or against us.
I'm all for a ban which is simply, "any parent who allows their child to access social media will be sent to the gulag".
Problem solved, and with minimal government meddling.
A ban explicitly requires government interference. That's what a ban is.
While I agree with the general argument that iOS shouldn’t limit the user’s freedom, it looks to me like Apple actually put in some effort to make this as privacy-preserving as possible.
The article somewhat glosses over it, but you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£. That one is widely accepted and it doesn’t contain unnecessary information that might cause trouble if it leaked (like for example a passport does). And 1 in 3 adults (according to the article) have an Apple account that’s old enough so that they will automatically be unlocked, no further documents needed.
The article strongly accuses iOS of being a walled garden, but I don’t see that as a particularly strong argument after iOS being locked down for ~20 years now.
And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
The PASS card features your name and photo, it's an ID by any other name.
You must have a very warped perspective of social reality if you think it should be acceptable to force every adult to show their papers before they can do anything in modern society - and all that just so you can avoid your parenting duties. And I say that as a parent.
Some people just want government to parent them.
I'm not worried about my parenting duties. I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not. That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
And yes, the PASS card has name and photo. But no adress, no social security number or secret ID or equivalent. If your PASS card leaks, nobody can create a bank account in your name. If your passport leaks, they can. That's the difference in privacy, seen in action.
> I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not.
Different families can choose to raise their children differently. Please let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids.
There are parents who are more strict with their kids than you are in ways you don’t agree with. I guarantee you wouldn’t be happy if they were lobbying to force your kids to obey their chosen set of rules because they didn’t want “inequality”.
zero countries give infinite freedom about how you raise your kids. and if too many parents fail at something probably government should do it for them.
it's like drinking age. you can't send your kid for a beer. you are free to buy beer and let your kid drink a glass. same here. if something is not accessible to the kid directly you can still show it to your kid. you are the parent
> zero countries give infinite freedom about how you raise your kids.
The debate wasn’t about removing all government controls on parenting.
It’s about where to draw the line.
exactly. so who of us said
> let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids
like somebody is taking it away?
you are still free to make your choices, just like with feeding your kid beer or giving them cigs. It's just a healthy default is now applied to average kid for whom parents don't care to make choices. Why do you keep arguing and moving goalposts?
If those restrictions are so good for children, wouldn't it be in your interest to enforce them - even when other parents do not?
Or are you worried about your kids getting an unfair advantage over unrestricted ones?
I am not parent comment, and I'm also not in favour of restrictions for all/most people in the name of "the kids" for all the reasons covered in this debate. Invasive age verification feels even worse.
But I gotta tell I am not looking forward to deciding which is worse when my little kids grow up and I either have to: - let them use TikTok (or whatever it is by then) and suffer what I know to be an insidious poison - make them be on the outside of the circle and suffer exclusion by their peers because they don't get any of the memes
I've been the only kid in class without the new 18-rated Call of Duty game, or indeed a games console to play it on. At the time, it sucked. In retrospect I totally agree with my parents, young children should not be playing games about shooting each other! (Of course other parents may disagree)
CoD was only the new hotness once every couple of years. TikTok can make something the new hotness every week.
My only real hope to escape this dilemma is that enough other parents in my cohorts realise how poisonous TT is and the problem goes away... I can't say I'm optimistic.
> At the time, it sucked. In retrospect I totally agree
Being parented essentially means rules applied that are in your long term interest despite your own preferences (typically shorter term). When I had to go to bed on time, it sucked. When I had to eat my vegetables, it sucked
The kids who didn't watch soaps, didn't have phones, didn't get to see 15 films... etc, were fine in the end. This isn't a new concern. Every other generation of parents has done it.
> My only real hope to escape this dilemma
I simply don't see a dilemma.
> didn't have phones ... were fine in the end
Or depressed and suicidal because of being socially excluded in formative years. Let's roll the dice, what's the worst that can happen, more mentally sick adults? Clearly if we look around this is not backfiring in any way.
It's not just you.
Imagine if smoking was allowed and considered cool. You basically must your child never allow to mingle with an average kid. If you are too busy at work, if you are single parent, or need a work trip, 100% you come back and your kid is a smoker.
All because what other families are free to decide and they don't give a fuck.
Do you want that world back? Do you have money to live in a gated house with private school and full time nanny and stuff so you can raise your child separately from the average? Must be nice
But are you not worried about the democratic precedent that treating citizens as de-facto minors and arbitrarily withholding information, with little to no oversight, will set? And your kids seeing the fully realized end of that slippery slope ?
What if your government decides that anything LGBT is taboo for kids[1]? Or that informations about say, ongoing genocides, is deemed too graphic for kids. Won't that also increase the blast radius to people who didn't bother justifying their age, even though they supposedly also have the right to vote?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Edu...
> That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
You don't need to worry about "lazier". I don't think that exists in the context of your concerns.
It should be a total non-issue for photocopies of passports to get leaked.
Are you aware that fake passports exist right?
Those people are not going into the bank with photocopies of passports, they are creating fake passports for that, all they need from the photocopy is the number to put in the fake one.
And in many countries this days you can create a bank accounts using the bank app and all they ask for is a photo of your ID/Passport, now you dont even have to create a good fake for that.
You should be concerned about a government issuing these ridiculous and dangerous controls on what you can do in society. Not whether, within that dystopia it is fair to submit in one way or another.
Also, kids understand perfectly well that different parents have different rules.
I don’t think the government or Apple should be responsible for protecting you from mopey teenagers by blocking free internet access for everyone just so that it “is fair”. Are you even hearing yourself?
Then you’ve never been to China
So if someone kicks you in the nuts (apt for your username) you shouldn’t be mad because some other person 10000km away got shot?
Your phone should not have any business whatsoever collecting, checking, or verifying the age of the person using it.
> And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
If you cared about your children, you would be against this. Otherwise you're fighting against your children's future; their privacy, their sanity, their ability to participate in a functioning democracy.
A phone, no. An internet connected device is another question.
One can always get a dumbphone without this.
“But $parent, none of the other kids have it on! I’m missing out on everything! Are you trying to ruin my life? I hate you!”
Rinse and repeat until you break
I’m a parent and I think all of these arguments are ridiculous. You shouldn’t need the force of government across the nation to set boundaries for your own kids.
It’s also getting kind of silly to pretend that these laws are going to stop those other kids’ parents from simply age-verifying their phones for them. These fantasies where the government passes a law and suddenly every parent and child in the country settle into the exact same social norms are just that - fantasy.
I'm a parent and this argument is silly to put it gently.
"No" is a complete sentence after the reasoning has been laid out the first time.
Yes, I did the same with tiktok, Instagram, WhatsApp in my house for my kids. Their home network is mildly sanitised, their phones minimally parented.
It's mostly consensus despite their whining (mostly performative, it seems).
Also parent in the UK - strong disagree, it’s part of our parental responsibilities to set this up, not doing it is the same as not watching a newly walking baby on the stairs (/etc). Compromising everyone’s privacy for a subset of lazy parents is a failing of society.
Relatively few newly walking babies have peers whose parents allow them to use stairs unattended making them feel socially excluded for not also using stairs unattended.
Ignoring the existence of peer pressure and calling parents lazy is a failing of individuals.
This is not going to get rid of peer pressure. That existed long before kids had phones and it will continue to be a problem with this.
Parents should be there to teach rather than just restrict. Kids will need to learn how to recognize and deal with peer pressure at some point.
Also Apple definitely benefits from peer pressure generally. Their devices are seen as status symbols, the dreaded green bubbles, maybe more. I wouldn't expect them to do anything to actually improve things in this area.
> subset of lazy parents is a failing of society
I would say we are closer to having society fail thanks to the woeful quality of parenting demonstrated by the majority.
I see several posts in this thread from different users suggesting that we buy an age verification ID card.
They all misformat currency in the same weird way. No one actually British writes 15£.
I don’t want to pay an extra tax to access the web or use my phone.
I don’t want to be monitored or censored by a nanny state because you don’t to stand up to your kids.
I’m angry that this is being brought in without discussion.
This is unacceptable to me. I’m going to vote for whichever party says it will revoke the Online Safety Act.
> because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
That’s a strange argument. The government or anyone doesn’t have a mandate to ensure everyone has the exact same experience. Differences in upbringing are normal. I didn’t have a TV growing up while most of my friends did. It might have felt unfair at the time, but it wouldn’t justify the government forcing my parents to get one -> overreach.
Thanks for your comment. It's good to hear from people that want this, as to understand which voters politicians are relying on for support for passing this at a legal level.
However, I fundamentally and ideologically disagree with your views on the matter, and I think your views are incompatible with a free society with checks and balances, and frankly, draconian.
iOS is a walled garden and it will be as strong an argument as ever, regardless of how long iOS has been a walled garden for. Also, don't you see how having to buy your privacy for 15£, even for 0.01£ is ridiculous? And to your last point - a parent can easily bypass all that bullshit if they wanted. They could let their kids use a normal computer without any walled gardens. What's to stop them from seeing 4chan or motherless or anything like that? Nothing. And nothing will unless you force all of society into your dystopic vision of a safe world for kids.
You forgot to mention that the (provisional) driving licence can be issued to 16 year olds.
Full (A1) licence to 17 year olds. It's a proper, full licence, just for a limited power/displacement. Looks proper, "adult".
I don't have iPhone in my household but but I'd very happily ask my nearly 17yo child to try to pass as an adult using their licence to point to the utter stupidity of this.
And to address your last point - the difference is not that Apple is barring adults from the huge portion of the internet (and no, I'm not talking about porn, to address inevitable strawman) unless they submit to the intrusive check.
What proves for me it's malicious, subversive pattern is that it hasn't been widely advertised.
The right way to do it would be to NOT turn it on, but allow to switch "I'm not an adult" option in the settings and then require age check to turn it off. It would require a parent to do it in their child's phone ONCE.
The way it is now is stupid, hostile, so utterly British Government in a way. Great job.
> you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£
If there's one thing the UK internet has taught me is that some brits will throw a fit for every minor inconvenience they face
"Dole appoint at 10am 30min from home!?" Means it's an unsurmountable challenge from them as they might be hangover from the previous day and what do you mean I have to pay the bus fare to get there?
Of course the privacy point stands. But their complaint is not about privacy, is about the effort
Why have Western countries introduced so many laws that look like China’s? The government controls more and more individuals
The west believes "Data is the new oil". The west can't compete with China or India in the amount of data their citizens can generate because they are the world's most populous country. China already has a huge head start because it has already been collecting and data-mining its citizen's data. Attempts to make stronger privacy laws and sovereign data laws in many western countries will also impede data collections. But state sharing of data - through 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes and 14 Eyes - along with BigTech data could give the west an edge. (The west already has partial access to indian data because it leaks through lax data privacy laws, ill-thought indian government policies and BigTech. But Chinese data is truly firewalled.)
So yes, you are right that we will see our democracies embrace more and more control over us citizens, limiting our rights, while our governments emulate China. This is unfortunately because the west believes that being a leader in technology is essential to retain its powers.
Two billion dollars of lobbying (i.e. bribery) by Facebook is the real answer.
https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...
Every government is preparing for the Third World War, which requires controlling the information infrastructure to enable domestic counterintelligence operations.
Because the West no longer competes with USSR.
It competes with China. But it's not like we can easily switch countries because of stupid laws, so what remains is to challrnge them. It only gives the wrong ideas to other wannabe autocrats.
I can get you residency in a number of countries in about 30 to 60 days. It’s remarkably easy to change countries an American friend of mine has over 15 residencies leading to over 10 passports. No citizenship by investment non sense either.
> 15 residencies leading to over 10 passports
Unlikely, considering most places require you to fulfill the granted residency by actually physically being there.
And are these even places you'd want to live?
only in the global north who want to you to spend half your time slaving for them. in the countries with privacy rights, and where slavery remains outlawed, the residency requirements are pretty minimal.
would i want to live there? yes. most definitely.
Can you name some specific countries?
Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Kenya, Costa Rica, UAE, Palau, Turkey, etc.
Paraguay requires for example 1 day for tax residency, 1 day every year for temp and 1 day every 3 years for permanent.
Will this really do any good when this kind of legislation magically appears through lobbyists simultaneously across the West? Let's not forget that blocks like the EU also have significant bullying power via trade policy.
Because the internet became a shithole.
I miss the old internet of mailing lists and websites with blinking gifs and "webrings".
I really do.
I have seen lots of webrings recently. Maybe they are coming back.
I can only speak for the USA, but the first-past-the-post voting plus a very strong bias towards rural areas and former slave-owner states, results in a government that poorly represents any of its constituents.
I don't know if even right-wingers like this age verification crap, maybe they put up with it from Republicans so they can vote against abortion and I put up with it from Democrats so I can vote for abortion.
Of course, if you vote for a third party, you're spoilering your side. Every country is a group project run by underpaid people to try to please millions of uninformed haters. Still better than dying of dysentery, I guess.
Many of the red states are passing age verification laws to view porn sites. However 100% of the sites are either ignoring the laws if they are not in the US or easily accessible via a VPN.
Vote with your feet, with an American passport you can choose from a multitude of countries each offering the politics of your choice. You can even mix and match.
The only western country left is Paraguay, maybe Israel too.
“The west” is now the global north, it’s mostly 3rd world countries dying of old age and going bankrupt in the process.
It's weird to see a North-African country let by a man investigated for war crimes and genocide, country that recently passed death sentence laws only for the indigenous population only, suggested as the last bastion of the western civilization?
I'm very happy my country is not bundled together with.....that.
I think this is trying to fix the wrong problem. As a soon to be parent I am not that worried about supposedly adult content, but I am genuinely concerned about peer pressure into joining various social media platforms and 4 year old with phones streaming cocomelon to my kid.
I have older kids. I worry about creeps masquerading as teenagers.
On the other hand, if this moral panic reaches a point where manipulative political content is forbidden for some age bracket, I see a benefit for older people.
The amazing irony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)
I activated ADP as soon as it was available here, and I was hoping things would work out, and friends and family who missed the opportunity would be able to use it by now as well.
I’m not pleased with this move, but its implementation has me wondering. I barely keep up with anything these days so I was taken by surprise after I updated. And, probably due to the decrepitude, I was annoyed for a few days that my phone had been nerfed and I had to roll back, before trying probably the first thing any younger person locked out would.
I’m curious, if there’s anyone who hasn’t verified a spare account, if they would point their phone at things? It might take a moment, and there’s no real feedback until the phone accepts your evidence. People have said it takes other people’s credit cards and ID, but I’m wondering if it’ll accept a pet passport too, or really what the limit is.
If you rolled back make sure you're on 18.7.7 or you're exposed to the "DarkSword", active in the wild if I'm not mistaken.
(I hope someone corrects me, I've read first hand sources but can't verify them independently)
It’s ok, I’m on 26.4.1 now. But being potentially locked out from security updates was my main concern.
Thinking that Apple would urgently reconsider anything because of some angry blog post is rather naive. Until this s tangibly affecting Apple's finances the probability they are giving a single shite is approaching zero. Pixel phones and GrapheneOS stonks up.
As much as I'd like to see Apple fight this, shouldn't the blame be placed on the governments for compelling this, rather than on Apple? What is the alternative, pulling out of the UK?
While I'd love this hard-line approach, as it might make other countries think twice, the stockholders probably wouldn't love it.
> Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 apply to websites and online services — not to entire phone operating systems.
Doesn't this go back to companies like Meta lobbying to push the responsibility to the OS instead of taking it on themselves? I read they did that in the US, I can only assume they did it in the UK as well.
Frankly, I'd rather have Apple qualify me as over 18 one time, and pass a simple boolean to a site vs having to upload proof (an ID, photos...) to every website I want to use. This may be the lesser of two evils.
Law doesn't require Apple to do it.
It's simple as that.
This is a VOLUNTARY act from Apple side but will be without doubt exploited by the overreaching, authoritarian country UK is now.
How would Apple possibly fight a valid law of any country it operates in?
So this is interesting. Apple's an incumbent, not some new disruptive company. What I mean to say is this isn't like a rideshare company that goes in burning money to build public sentiment while lobbying the politicians.
Everyone knows who Apple is. I'm certain UK gov has been in constant communication with Apple on how this is to be rolled out. They would have communicated intent and received feedback from Apple as to how they'll ship it. It's within their capability to lobby/advertise opposition to laws like this but logical option in Apple's position is to insist on a common framework countries could use so they don't need to build a different verify for every country.
I really do think Apple's primary opposition to not having E2EE is they didn't want to deal with the cost of complying with requests and the liability of hosting illegal content. That's the real pushback, because it's ongoing cost/liability to them.
Why stop at age?
Not long till complete authentication of the human at every level is required to use a computer.
> Not long till complete authentication of the human at every level is required to use a computer.
It'll be needed to tackle bots
s/bots/undesirables/
…at the end stage.
Fuck the bureaucrats responsible for this. I’m so sick of being completely powerless to fight any of this, being forced to sit and watch. Writing to my MP changes nothing. Signing petitions does nothing. The Government doesn’t give a fuck. They’ve had so many golden opportunities to differentiate themselves from the Tories and all they’ve done is carry the torch.
I will vote for any party that promises to rewind this crap, I don’t care what other policies they have. Enough of the nannying.
The real problem was never just checking age imo. It was deciding who deals with mistakes, who gets blamed when access is blocked wrongly, and how a normal user is supposed to fix it.
Moving that to the phone makes it look cleaner, but mostly just pushes the mess into a layer people have even less control over.
It's funny, I'm less worried about supposed "adult" content than I am "age-appropriate" content that these platforms push onto kids. Anyone remember those creepy as fuck Spiderman Elsa videos pushed on youtube kids?
Or hell, even "normal" content like MrBeast to me is infinitely more damaging to a kid's brain than porn or whatever other thing this policy bans. I'd much rather my kids regularly browse /b/ rather than consuming the brain rotting shit that MrBeast puts out.
Precisely. Yet in 2026 it's easier to get blocked by the os than to block the harmful content on YouTube (eg shorts).
One silver lining this is finally going to push me to switch to a dedicated camera and some niche unrestricted Linux or graphene device as a phone. Goodbye iPhone. (I say this as someone with an Apple account old enough to auto “qualify”, how lucky).
If you value security and privacy on the phone there's really no alternative to GrapheneOS or iPhone (comparable security, worse privacy).
It's pixel only at the moment, new Motorola devices expected in 2027.
LineageOS with no google services is fine too, most users don't actually need 90% of the Apps they are using.
LineageOS doesn't come close in terms of security, however it's an amazing project for all the hardware abandoned by the vendors -- however I wouldn't go as far as telling people they're using their phones wrong and don't actually need to use 90% of they apps they use :)
This is what the people want and vote for? Can hardly blame Apple for following local regulations.
Just sad that Western citizen are throwing hard earned privacy rights so easily out of the window. Giving in to the most trivial emotional blackmail.
You don’t get to vote for anything. I mean, you do, but the result will always be the same.
It would be a lie to claim that local regulations require that.
I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying you're misinformed.
What do people expect when handing over their computing to a for-profit company? You can use various services where you knowingly hand over some of your data or offload a computational load, but with Apple it's like you're handing off the keys to your house, the plumbing, the electric wiring, the bricks, the alarm system and everything else to 1 entity. And you get upset when you realize you're just renting a property with less assurance you'd get from a slumlord in the ghetto. And for a lot of people that Apple property is their main computing property. Not a vacation home away from their desktop. Once they're evicted, once the slumlord disables the heating, increases the price of water or forbids you from inviting people, you have no other recourse.
This has more to do with the UK government than a "for-profit company". Apple has been one of the biggest forces pushing back against this kind of thing forever, at least in the US where companies still have rights.
No it doesn't. The UK government instituted age checks for social media, Apple didn't like the UK government and enabled age checks for the OS, wanting to blame the government for it. It's done this sort of thing before.
Because social media is embedded into many apps.
And why should they make it a problem of EVERYONE (primarily adults) using ANY app?
People expect companies to serve those who deliver said profit?
This will spawn at-least two crime waves: (1) boot sales of ‘unlocked’ edge devices infected with malware, and (2) senior-citizen identity-theft.
signal did everything right on their end. encrypted push, content only shown if the user opts in. the weak link is iOS caching decrypted notification content in an unencrypted sqlite database that survives app deletion. the 'e2e' in e2e encryption ends at the os, not the app.
I can't see my private messages on Bluesky, n eh I guess I never will
I’ll likely end up voting based on this issue. This dystopian track everyone but think of the children dystopian BS in the UK needs to stop.
The issue is the parties taking a strong stance on this are not the ones I’d normally align with
Camel. Nose. Tent.
For the moment, governments claim to want only she verification "for the children". Let's be honest: governments like the UK and Germany (to name two) are prosecuting people for posting unwanted opinions, or - heaver forfend - for insulting politicians.
To pursue those prosecutions they need identities. Age verification is the first step towards requiring your real identity in social media.
The joys of locked bootloaders strike again.
Age requirements for managing an Apple Account in the UK
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/126788
To understand the age verification push, got to follow the incentives[0].
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfukJ6uVHXs
[flagged]
Why do you think this is exclusive to Apple? Android is rolling out age verification as well while simultaneously making side loading more difficult.
This isn't a legal thing, it's Apple being Apple. The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_age_verification_in_the...
The comment that you are replying to is saying that it's not exclusive to Apple and gives a non-Apple example. Your link has zero instances of the string "Apple". What am I missing.
> The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc
So...not exclusive to Apple.
It's so not exclusive to Apple that it didn't even apply to Apple at all.
>I see "Big Brother Watch" has their own narrative to push though.
The narrative that people have a right to privacy and we should prevent government overreach?
[flagged]
You can blame the government as much as you like, but this is actually has to do with british nature, they have an obsessive need for control, and if you worked with some you will immediately notice how they will try to make all sort of policies and shit to control the other party, all while they pretend they are open about hearing other’s opinions. So it kinda backfired, what goes around comes around.
Funny; as a Brit I'd say the above is a classic hallmark of American companies.
Brits are masters of malicious compliance.
> Brits are masters of malicious compliance.
My favourite example of this was when Thatcher passed a law banning the broadcast of Sinn Féin. The BBC responded by dubbing the audio with actors’ voices. So you would watch the news and see an interview with Gerry Adams, but you would be hearing an actor speak his words, meaning the BBC were complying with the law by not broadcasting his voice.
> The BBC responded by dubbing the audio with actors’ voices.
Don't forget the cherry on top - an actor who sounded exactly like Gerry Adams / whoever.
Well, now BBC is the far right megaphone / government propaganda outlet so that wouldn't happen today...
Apple isn't doing shit except for following the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
I will edit this to say, since I'm sure people are out there who will make this point: yes, I read the article. I disagree with it. "Not required by the OS" Well that isn't going to matter much when Apple gets hit with a big fat fine for "allowing" underage users on social media.
Law doesn't require Apple to do it.
Could there not be a reason that Apple made this choice involving their own legal risk? Sometimes what a law actually requires is up to what happens in court in the future.
I'm guessing Apple made the calculation that doing this was cheaper than litigating it. The slop submission in OP makes the claim that the law doesn't apply, but I skimmed it already and came to the conclusion it could apply and it will be up to the courts to make the precedent.
Part 5 is too broadly written: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/part/5
'internet services' is extremely broad and could include apple's own appstore, icloud services, maybe even their browser could be considered software acting on behalf of a provider.
Now of course they could be stretching, but OFCOM has their own overview that digs into just how broad they consider the legislation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...
With all this being said, I do think Apple probably could have fought it and even if they had to leave the UK market, they'd still be fine. They rely on China and South Korea to manufacture their devices so they would not be fine without these markets.
It's probably related to the fact that Apple doesn't see itself selling devices, you don't really buy and own the phone. You rent a device from them and the Apple account is the doorway to that subscription plan.
This is not a law in the UK.
Apple doesn't need to fight anything.
I would rather prove my age to Apple than [insert random website].
I think that’s what Apple is banking on. They sell privacy as a feature of their products, and I’m grateful for that.
And I would rather have the _choice_ whether to prove my age to Apple or not. I think if it were optional, with the additional option of "share my age with websites & apps", nobody would have an issue with it.
The issue is that if you don’t prove your age, access is blocked.
So it’s not optional. At least in Australia.
It's entirely optional within Australia - I don't use Apple, nor do my kids or their kids.
If a website/app requests you to prove your age, you can’t optionally avoid it and continue to use the website/app.
Hasn't happened in any meaningful way yet, so I'll deal with that if and when it happens.
It is optional, you can skip past it. Presumably you will lose access to some websites and apps though.
This is where the lack of installing software (sideloading) becomes problematic.
They made it mandatory already, while still not being required to do so.
It would be exceptionally simple to NOT make it mandatory and automatic, and to allow a parent (to make Apple's lie more like actual concern) easy to flip on.
From what I see it also doesn't distinguish between, say, 11 year old and 17 year old. These two ages have vastly different.....development levels. Just to put it in perspective: 16 year old can legally drink alcohol in a pub, can literally have sex with anyone without anyone getting into trouble but apple decides they need to be maintained like primary school child?
I know some of my kids' classmates are barred by their parents from attending any sex ed/relationship classes. Today Apple proudly joins the most backwards and restrictive sects, just because (no, it's not the law).
I don't access any age-restricted content as far as I know, I refused to bend over to Bluesky and instead use alternative services to access my DMs.
Like, come on. That's a very hostile, unnecessary move from Apple, likely a secret agreement with the government of the UK.