It is not new: when it comes to evaluating minors’ Internet access (like owning a cell phone) it has been an object of interest for years. In this sense, the growing pressure to regulate children’s use of technology in the United States raises the question: Is it constitutional to childproof the Internet? This is what Meg Leta Jones, an expert in technology law at Georgetown University, has considered.
The experience of minors with digital technologies (often linked to addiction, harassment or access to pages not recommended for minors) has led the United States to pass a series of laws. California, for example, requires that a page evaluate whether the person accessing it is over 18 years of age. Texas, for its part, fines pages with pornographic content that allow minors to enter, Florida has prohibited access to social networks for minors under 14 years of age and New York prohibits designs that can create addiction in minors, both on pages and in video games.
“All of these laws require platforms to treat children differently than adults – explains Jones in an editorial -, and therefore require platforms to know who is a child and who is an adult. This practice is known as age control and includes a few methods. The old COPPA law (Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act) added restrictions, responsibilities and obligations for sites directed to children or sites that had knowledge that a user was under 13 years old. Most sites get around the law’s restrictions and requirements by simply including language in their terms of service that prohibits anyone under 13 from creating an account. Others, like Facebook, eventually went further and asked the user to enter their age or date of birth, but minors learned a long time ago to overcome the barrier practically without meaning”.
The problem is that to infer age, most websites rely on clicking a button to confirm that you are of legal age. The other option is to use user-generated data, either through biometric scans of the face or voice or analysis of the data that platforms already collect for targeted advertising. Or relying on evidence already vetted by another institution, such as a government ID or credit card, raising privacy and security concerns.
“To limit sharing or access to content, the government must have a good reason – adds Jones -. Therefore, the first question to ask is whether the harm to minors is really that serious and whether laws can reduce it.”
Jones also asks another, deeper question. This expert assures that the laws have changed, the technology has changed and childhood has also changed: we must decide if this is positive or not. And what can we do about it.