If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RYOT.org)   California's new "Erase Law" will let minors delete embarrassing posts from the Internet for good before they get screwed out of jobs because of them. If only the law were for adults too   (ryot.org) divider line 27
    More: Misc, online, Googles  
•       •       •

3788 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 9:45 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-03 08:52:55 PM
15 votes:
California will be shocked to discover large parts of the Internet don't care about California laws.
2014-03-03 09:51:24 PM
7 votes:
seems like it would be easier to just ban minors from the internet.
2014-03-03 09:50:02 PM
6 votes:
Shall we allow them to delete their embarrassingly bad grades, also?

Because nothing says "successful policy" like indoctrinating our kids into a culture of 'poor decisions have no consequences".
2014-03-04 05:33:42 AM
2 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2014-03-03 10:41:28 PM
2 votes:

serial_crusher: By requiring that websites extend this choice to minors, the bill sets up a big task for online companies. They'll now have to figure out how to determine which users are under 18 and in California.

Well, you could just give the same feature to everybody.  Implementing this sort of thing can be a pain in the ass, but on the surface it doesn't sound much different than the laws they already have in the EU.


The EU version of these laws would never survive our first amendment, and the wording of this law seems tailored to avoid having it struck down on those grounds.... but it renders it functionally useless.  

You can delete your  own copies of your  own posts.  If I quote your embarrassing post and say, "Look at this idiot who just embarrassed himself!" you don't get to remove that.

So basically, this aspect of the law does almost exactly nothing that you can't already do on the majority (in terms of traffic, at least) of the sites where it might be relevant.

It's unenforceable, feel-good bullshiat that does absolutely nothing useful.
2014-03-03 10:20:14 PM
2 votes:

Warlordtrooper: SevenizGud: Shall we allow them to delete their embarrassingly bad grades, also?

Because nothing says "successful policy" like indoctrinating our kids into a culture of 'poor decisions have no consequences".

Not that I agree with this law at all but its a reactionary law stemming from a real social problem.  Just because actions have consequences doesn't mean those consequences should be of a nuclear proportion.  It seems like more than ever before the a persons minor transgressions from being a dumb kid are following them around for their entire life.  Yes actions should have consequences but the consequences should be proportional to the action.


Here's another plan.  Teach kids that actions have consequences when they are young.  Stop wrapping them in bubble wrap every day of their lives and let them scrape their knees and break the occasional bone.  Casts and stitches make you think about where you went wrong.

Let them know long before they are old enough to take a picture(or let someone else take a picture) of them shoving a popsicle in their cooter and it ends up on the internet.
2014-03-03 10:08:26 PM
2 votes:
Everyone knows posting stupid shiat on the internet is like pissing in the pool: to get rid of it, you gotta drain the entire thing.
2014-03-03 10:05:04 PM
2 votes:

God-is-a-Taco: This ranks up there with "series of tubes". These people are in no position to dictate rules on something they cannot understand.


This is why we need term limits and younger blood in office.
2014-03-03 10:02:46 PM
2 votes:
This ranks up there with "series of tubes". These people are in no position to dictate rules on something they cannot understand.
2014-03-03 09:55:59 PM
2 votes:
Apparently California has never heard of The Streisand Effect.
2014-03-03 09:50:15 PM
2 votes:
FTA: All websites, including social media giants Facebook and Twitter, will now be required to give those under 18 an opportunity to delete harmful photos and posts.

Because if there's one thing California needs its legislature to spend time on, it's unenforceable laws.
2014-03-04 07:09:29 AM
1 votes:

Callous: God-is-a-Taco: This ranks up there with "series of tubes". These people are in no position to dictate rules on something they cannot understand.

This is why we need term limits and younger blood in office.


While I agree, I'm not sure younger people would be any more technically competent.  Old people often comment about how good their kids are with computers when really all they can do is open whatever app or piece of software they need to use.  The technology itself is a black box for most people, even the young'uns who use it every day; they haven't the faintest clue how it actually works.

What legislators ACTUALLY need is to consult actual experts whenever they even get a glimmer of a thought about passing anything having to do with technology.
2014-03-04 03:21:04 AM
1 votes:
Young people do stupid things on the internet?  Last night I saw a girl (woman?) who's been 18 for a whole two weeks naked on a public cam site.  If its not bad enough that she's still in high school, she pulled out a bottle of vodka and started downing it.  She ended up saying her real name and the high school she goes to and talked about some of her teachers in an inappropriate way.  If anyone got a recording of that there could be serious consequences.  I think rather than than laws, we really need to teach cause and effect, responsibility, and consequences.
2014-03-04 02:22:43 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: All websites, including social media giants Facebook and Twitter, will now be required to give those under 18 an opportunity to delete harmful photos and posts.

I can see where this will fail immediately.

It's permissive, not mandatory. The duty falls upon the minor to request the photos to be removed, not upon the media provider to inform the minor that such photos or posts exist and ask if they wish them to be removed. The only duty imposed on the provider is that the minor be advised that such opportunity exists, which duty could be (and likely will be) achieved by legal wording buried in the TOS.

Oh, and there's a handy out, in case you're wondering how reposts would be affected: They're not. The relevant language:

(d) An operator shall be deemed compliant with this section if:
(1) It renders the content or information posted by the minor user no longer visible to other users of the service and the public even if the content or information remains on the operator's servers in some form.
(2)  Despite making the original posting by the minor user invisible, it remains visible because a third party has copied the posting or reposted the content or information posted by the minor.

So, this bill is feel-good b/s that imposes no duty on anyone, can be enforced by no one, and is, essentially, worthless. Full text of the bill and the incorporation into California's Business and Professions Code here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2 0 1320140SB568


Even more fun: I see nothing in the bill offhand that would make the following scenario non-compliant:
User posts
User requests post be removed
Operator flags post publicly as being flagged for removal by author.
Operator requests verification that user is, in fact, a minor.
Third party sees the request, screencaps/quotes post.
Operator removes post.

After reading the bill, I think it's passing more for the idiotic advertising restrictions involved(Section i of the bill).
2014-03-04 02:04:47 AM
1 votes:
Gyrfalcon:   It's permissive, not mandatory. The duty falls upon the minor to request the photos to be removed, not upon the media provider to inform the minor that such photos or posts exist and ask if they wish them to be removed.

We agree it is bad policy, maybe not for the same reasons.  Surely it would be as bad or worse if there were a "duty ... upon ... the ... media provider to inform the minor that such photos or posts exist"?  Because in that case FB and the others would have to hire people to search through their archives and find the objectionable content.  How on earth could they find a bunch of underemployed malcontents willing to do this?

The legislatures in others of the United States do pay attention to what CA does, especially in the area of internet regulation.

How is law enforcement or a court supposed to determine whether a site is directed at people in the target range 13-17?  Teens like some of the same things we do.  Also, when federal privacy law began regulating sites aimed at children under 13, it was messy to comply and most sites avoided compliance or ignored the law -- some to their lasting regret.  The category of child-specific sites that comply with the federal guidelines is narrow.  This law is a desperate attempt by parents to create a category of teen sites, or a teen section of FB et al., to counter the fact that new free communications services for teens spawn faster than parents can follow.  They want to know where the teens are and what they are doing online.

Teenagers.  They have near-zero political power because they can't vote.  Parents will vote for just about think they think will help them have more control over the teens because to them, that's good parenting.  Public (excuse me 'government' as rightist independents now prefer) schools and their advocates also like this kind of thing. These are the same folks who, when not-so-little Timmy gets out of line, figure calling 911 will teach him a good lesson.
2014-03-04 12:36:13 AM
1 votes:
All websites, including social media giants Facebook and Twitter, will now be required to give those under 18 an opportunity to delete harmful photos and posts.

I can see where this will fail immediately.

It's permissive, not mandatory. The duty falls upon the minor to request the photos to be removed, not upon the media provider to inform the minor that such photos or posts exist and ask if they wish them to be removed. The only duty imposed on the provider is that the minor be advised that such opportunity exists, which duty could be (and likely will be) achieved by legal wording buried in the TOS.

Oh, and there's a handy out, in case you're wondering how reposts would be affected: They're not. The relevant language:

(d) An operator shall be deemed compliant with this section if:
(1) It renders the content or information posted by the minor user no longer visible to other users of the service and the public even if the content or information remains on the operator's servers in some form.
(2)  Despite making the original posting by the minor user invisible, it remains visible because a third party has copied the posting or reposted the content or information posted by the minor.

So, this bill is feel-good b/s that imposes no duty on anyone, can be enforced by no one, and is, essentially, worthless. Full text of the bill and the incorporation into California's Business and Professions Code here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=2 0 1320140SB568
2014-03-04 12:06:20 AM
1 votes:
Problem: Tween girl has naked selfies on Facebook.

PROPER Solution: Beat parents severely with baseball bat for giving her a phone that not only takes pictures but also has a button that instantly posts said photos directly to Facebook.

99% of the time any problem with a kid on the internet STARTED from a parent NOT BEING A PROPER PARENT. The other 1% is a kid that is way smarter then his parents just being a little shiat because he can.
2014-03-03 11:37:24 PM
1 votes:
Never, ever type anything into a website, chat client or forum that you wouldn't say to 20,000,000 over a 10,000 watt PA system at noon, in broad daylight.
2014-03-03 11:26:35 PM
1 votes:

nyseattitude: OgreMagi: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: California will be shocked to discover large parts of the Internet don't care about California laws.

Something being impossible or not legally enforceable has not stopped the politicians in this state before.  Why would they care now?

Care to elaborate?


California has tried to pass bullet serialization bills several times.  The only problem is that no one can demonstrate how to do it in production.  The patent holder has demonstrated how to do it on a work bench by hand one bullet at a time but not in anything close to a production environment.

It's at least a 4 step process.  Laser etch the serial number on the side and back of the bullet, two locations are required so that number is visible on the outside and hidden on the inside of the completed cartridge to prevent easy removal of the serial number, Laser etch the serial number on the inside and outside of the casing, two locations required for the same reason as above.  Then bring the correct casing and bullet together so they match billions of times a year.  Then put them in a box that lists all the serial numbers of the bullets on the packaging.  If that process gets 1 round out of sync at anytime the whole thing is for naught as any bullets or casings collected at a crime scene can't be trusted.  Or there will have to be massive production shutdowns and recalls until they are sure what's going out is accurate again.

The patent holder has no idea how to do this.  He just wants the law passed so that the manufacturers have to figure out how to do it and then pay him.

Oh and it would also outlaw reloading because your hand loads wouldn't be properly serialized.
2014-03-03 11:23:59 PM
1 votes:
I'd rather pass a law that prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from accessing the internet.
2014-03-03 10:29:21 PM
1 votes:

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: California will be shocked to discover large parts of the Internet don't care about California laws.


Something being impossible or not legally enforceable has not stopped the politicians in this state before.  Why would they care now?
2014-03-03 10:23:13 PM
1 votes:

gaspode: Facebook and Twitter absolutely will have to comply with it though. They are both based in Cali. Of course it will be laughably ineffective but they will have to do something to appear to comply.


You seem to have mistaken Facebook and Twitter for small, local companies instead of immensely wealthy transnational businesses. If a particular region annoys them they can just switch to a different office.
2014-03-03 10:12:22 PM
1 votes:

gaspode: Facebook and Twitter absolutely will have to comply with it though. They are both based in Cali. Of course it will be laughably ineffective but they will have to do something to appear to comply.


That's an interesting theory but let's consider that if  the Syrian Electronic Army has an account on Twitter; ergo, Twitter maintains the accounts of a known terrorist group...thus...wait for it....

...any stockholder or any one generating revenue for Twitter would be materially supporting a company that provides material support for a terrorist group.

just sayin...
2014-03-03 10:08:00 PM
1 votes:
Huh.  I've never seen a state so desperate to get one of their major industries to leave.
2014-03-03 10:07:26 PM
1 votes:
31.media.tumblr.com
2014-03-03 10:06:11 PM
1 votes:
Would this apply to the NSA?
2014-03-03 10:00:45 PM
1 votes:
Have any of these legislators ever used the internet for anything other than porn?  Google Cache? Archive.org?  and I'm sure there's others.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report