State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy.

The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfriendly information if that flag is included.

I know a lot of people believe that this is just all just a secret ploy to destroy privacy. Personally, I don't think so. I think they genuinely want to protect kids, and the privacy destruction is driven by a combination of not caring and not understanding.

In the 90s they told kids: don't give strangers your real name online. In 2026: the government demands your ID to access the internet. Progress.

It's tiring how legislation like this is becoming predictable and feels inevitable. This article even mentions the verification needing to be embedded in the operating system itself, spelling the death of open computing

Next they'll try to make Tor and I2p illegal.

If this really bothers you, talk to your state AG's office and your federal lawmaker

The worst that can happen is you don't change things.

The best? Maybe you'll find a receptive ear. Your lawmaker stops co-sponsoring KOSA. Your state AG stops pushing for it.

> 40 State Attorneys General Want To Tie Online Access to ID

Here's the actual title of the article, which is much more concerning than the HN title.

Instead of lobbying for taking away everyone's privacy, why isn't the government going after those they say are the actual culprits? From the article:

"The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental health risks and point to evidence suggesting firms are aware of adverse consequences for minors."

Okay, so why aren't they going after the social media companies?

Would this mean spammers and advertisers cannot send me email and ads if I refuse to allow my mailbox to authenticate my age to them?

RIP Internet. I don't agree with any of this, but I don't see the majority of people protesting this. If anything, promotion it because: Think of the children.

"Many social media platforms deliberately target minors, fueling a nationwide youth mental health crisis."

". These platforms are intentionally designed to be addictive, particularly for underaged users, and generate substantial profits by monetizing minors’ personal data through targeted advertising. These companies fail to adequately disclose the addictive nature of their products or the well-documented harms associated with excessive social media use. Increasing evidence demonstrates that these companies are aware of the adverse mental health consequences imposed on underage users, yet they have chosen to persist in these practices. Accordingly, many of our Offices have initiated investigations and filed lawsuits against Meta and TikTok for their role in harming minors. "

Yet, the comapnies aren't being regulated, nor the algorithims, the marketing or even the existence. It's the users that are the problem therefore everyone has to submit their Identity to use the Internet if this passes.

They want to sniff after everyone. The "omg terrorists" or "omg children" is the lie.

And why wouldn't a state attorney want this? I expect cops would also like blanket warrants usable whenever they deem necessary.

That doesn't mean they should get what they might want, or that its Constitutional.

At a certain point the world just becomes less appealing to live in. Day by day death becomes more appealing; what do you have to lose when life just means living in a pigpen?

What is a good resource for reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory Real ID for Internet access?

Aren't there sound reasons to support anonymous whistleblowing?

Would there be critical feedback without pseudo-anonymity on the internet?

But you folks just have to dom all the haters.

What is their favorite thing: stuffed animal brand, candy, musical artist?

But then wouldn't undercover ops be obvious?

Is this similar to the "ban all crypto" movements that periodically forget everything we've learned about infosec and protecting folks?

Do protectees' deserve privacy for their safety?

In the 1990s, they told us kids not to use our real names or addresses on the internet.

All forms of citizen power, such as widespread publishing, will eventually be tied to strong ID requirements.

You can’t illegally retaliate against citizens if you don’t know where they sleep at night.

Between this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026134 on the front page it feels, yet again, like we’re speed running to living in a Peter Watts novel

we really need better leadership

The internet as we know it will be the first casualty of a great power hot war. We are living on borrowed time.

If there are 40 state Attorney Generals signing this letter, this must include a number of Democrat lead states as well correct?

I’m going to go against the pessimism here and say that this is the US not Europe or the UK and the First Amendment has teeth. There’s ample Supreme Court precedent that anonymous speech is a protected right (Talley vs CA, Macintyre vs Ohio, etc) so I’d expect efforts like this to flounder in the courts if push came to shove.

I have mixed feelings about this website, reclaimthenet. In one breath it supports net neutrality and and opposes ID laws, and in the next — not in this particular article — mentions the Twitter files and says the UK is a dictatorship for arresting Lucy Connolly.

I blame HN and Silicon Valley in general for consistently treating keeping children online safe as a parental responsibility only, rather than a government-parent team effort like every other regulation.

This loophole, “think of the children,” would not exist if SV had gotten over itself and not called very solution unworkable while insisting that any solution parents receive, no matter how sloppy or confusing, is workable.