A blow to age verification?

she has no answer, it's been hashed with her many times in many threads.

There is nothing that isn't to be blunt overly invasive to the point of biometrics on the user linked to a worldwide database... that would verify who is using the computer

Which is exactly the problem. If you find a way to verify the details provided are the details of the person that opened the account, then you would still need to verify that the person using the account was the person that opened the account. While we have no minors, other than the dog, in our household, I will point out that my wife and I routinely use the other's account in other situations (not SL - I don't like her haircut) rather than log out and back in to our own user accounts for a just a few minutes of use.

The dog uses his own account. He says no one knows he's a dog on the Internet. I think he managed to get age verified, so probably should check my credit cards...

There's no such thing as an ungamable Age Verification system, that would be akin to the unstealable car. I'm yet to see infailable proper parenting too.
So clearly a combination of systems is required.
The "Are you over 18?" check box does nothing to protect users and is little protection for LL could be chewed up annd spat out by a court quite easily. For LL it is a minmum requirement they have to adhere to nothing else. Credit cards may only stop 90% of kids, who are parenting "failures", but that's still better than 0%

Proper parenting is great but untill perfect parenting exists reliably across 100% of the population there needs to be a second system of protection.
To rely on just one sytem is to say, you don't need an ignition lock to prevent car theft because door locks are 100% effective keeping theives out of cars.

Whereas to have both will still not be ungamable, but better than just one.

Simply when to you expect proper parenting implementation toi be complete, and will it be 100% effective? If not how effective do you really think it would be in reality, will all your friends, family and workmates implement effectively? And who will police it if they don't?

Personally I don't believe I could ever trust 100% of the worlds parents to bring up their kids in a proper fashion.

But whether the real person is the one at the keyboard in this case is not the problem, the fact is that at least someone is taking responsibility for that accounts use, if it's your account and your wife or dog use it to break the law it's the responsibility of you to deal with it, you obviously trust them enough to allowthem to use it. If your kid goes into a site with your credit card or password and uses it to buy $200 of X-rated DVD's, you are responsible.
And till we get chips in our heads and even for some time afterwards that is the best we can get is to have an account linked to a RL person who takes responsibility for it's actions. Currently we have no requirement for this so any age verfication is useless.

Actually that checkbox is all that is federally mandated for any site with adult material due to the difficulty of verification. So it means they are covered legally.

It also means that the innocent child committed fraud to get into the site/service. And by suing LL they have a rl name to give the police for them to charge (with various crimes). So those charges against LL can go away real quick when they find the innocent victim is facing jail time (for admitting they cheated the systems in place)

There is a difference between reasonable steps that the companies can make, especially considering the difficulties inherit in trying to verify identities and age online. Coupled with the data protection laws that have to be taken into consideration (especially for operating internationally)

But it seems more and more that nobody wants to be a parent, they want the 2.5 kids that are status symbols still...

You might want to look out for large purchases of Scooby Snacks and Play Pet subscriptions.

I think you may be a little hard on parents. In today's economy most couples both work too much just to pay the bills. Kids come home after school before the parents get home. The parents cant afford a nanny, so the kids are home from 3 to 6 which is the time most teenage crimes are committed. Generally, I think people try to do the best they can.

Which is why I encourage everyone to do what I do, which is I run over any teenager I see out and about between 3 and 6, the miserable little hoodlum. My little piece to fight crime in the neighborhood.

Least I could do.

It takes 5 minutes to set up a password account with internet privileges.

It may require an hour or two to educate yourself on how to set up the computer to prevent junior from going online when you are not home.

Plus long before they are teenagers they should have been taught right from wrong, and that there are limits to what they can do...

More and more jurisdictions, such as some of the states in the USA, are making requiring unnecessary privacy information included with commercial transactions simply illegal. So the first issue would be whether or not the commercial nexus is far enough from the age verification issue. The second issue is that increasingly such things as USA Social Security numbers require highly secure connections to be transferred - you can't transfer SSAN's in Maryland, for example, unless the connection is highly secure. Anything less than a https with high encryption would be illegal (real pain for tax preparers).

So even as people argue that there should be a irreducible method of age verification, that method, whatever it may be, might be illegal to be collected directly.

I can see an age verification data bank where people preauthorized for more than one use, but I can't see it functioning with SL. The way the laws in Maryland read, you could probably use it voluntarily to make it more convenient for you downstream, but SL could not require it as a process to complete a commercial transaction, probably including as part of joining. IOW, you can opt in but can't be required to join.

which is just about the time it takes for them to walk down the road to the web cafe.



and then they hit their teens and start to test those limits with a vengeance. That's just part of growing up.

Yes, there are some irresponsible parents around, but the majority of us are just muddling along doing our best in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. Much as we'd like to, we can't protect them from everything. I don't mean we should be absolved of responsibility for what our kids get up to, but I do get a little annoyed when people rush to blame the parents.

It's funny, since the age verification thing started, I still haven't heard any parents saying "this is a really good idea, I want this to protect my kids".

ah well, "a mother's place is in the wrong" ...

I am not sure this is true. I think LL would like SL to be for all ages. I just think LL wasn't sure how to do that and allow users to define content.

Pretty much true.

I have a 17 year old daugher .. with a ..

CAR!

She can get into a lot more trouble with that than going and looking at stuff on the internet.

When the internet is more mature it will get a more rational approach to parental responsibility,

Right now people think using the magic glowy box is somehow different than other things your kids can get up to.

Because there is no verification possible.

An educated parent educates the kids, because they know they can't be around 24/7

After all you can't keep the kids from wandering into the bad parts of town, but you can explain the dangers and such to them to keep them out.

This is all true. But... some people are lazy and would rather leave it up to someone else to do it.

You'd be amazed how many times, when I'm working on someone's home PC, they haven't a clue what they're doing other than going on eBay/Craigslist or just checking email. I'd go as far as saying a good chunk of the population doesnt care to learn.

As for passwords, the most common ones usually involve "administrator". GEEZ!!! I HATE when people leave it at defaults!!

Remember- its not the GOOD parents that make the news. Its the BAD ones we hear about.

There were a lot in the beginning who argued that. I don't know what happened to them.


----------------------------

Course its possible that it is dificult to hold the stance on a topic of ---

"I don't want to have to supervise my own children - I think the government should make more rules about it."

And not look like a lunatic.

Education of many on the limitations of technology...

Of course my recommendation of a creche for raising kids to adulthood so they don't have to worry about it was shot down too... I mean they could visit on weekends so they know what the parents look like. They'd be safe, well cared for... If it's too much effort to raise them and protect them, why not let the government have the full responsability?

Heck

Why not let the government have the responsibility for the adults too?

Who says the adults know what they are doing? With enough government enforced repression we can cure all sorts of social ills.

See you in the Gulag .. I mean Habitation facility.

Unfortunately... the creche idea would lead to not needing to do that, as they come out government approved sheep. It would just take time for the individuals from before the creche to die out...

So it would just take time...

Yep you can't implememt kidproof parenting in a couple of hours, it's and eternal struggle.
And honestly the verfications primary purpose is to protect adults from them anyway. If some teenager gets into SL and shock horror sees a fox and a checken doing the wild thing in a BDSM dungeon, it's their fault if they can't handle it, they clicked their way in past verfication systems.
But when some teenager engages in sex with an unknowing adult then tries to blackmail them for engaging with a minor, that's the real reason to restrict them getting in. I have heard a few stories where this happened, if you were unlucky enough to be in the same country, maybe it would stick enoughh to drag you into court, even if the case is thrown out, being dragged into court on false charges like that would be near as bad as the real thing. how many actually fork over Lindens after the threat I don't know. Maybe it's adults doing this to other adults, but nice to be a little reassured.

Reading through this entire thread makes me wonder a number of things. The crux though is this, and is addressed in the above quote: where does our responsibility, legally, begin and end in ascertaining the ages of all those with whom we come into contact in SL? I joined SL nearly a month ago now, as a place to get away for a while from RL. In the ensuing weeks, I have been going merrily along, "bumping uglies" like there was no tomorrow. I do not seek out anyone 17 and under. I am a gay man who likes other gay MEN, not male adolescents or or boys. I do enjoy having a good time doing it, even if it is just a configuration of pixels before me, through which I live vicariously for a moment. But, I feel a degree of responsibility to find out whether the "man" I with whom I am currently in flagrante delecto is a man and not a 15 year old. I see several steps I could take, some unhappy, others not that hard. But do what must I do legally to keep myself out of the jail cell.

-Don't play naughty games with child avatars (not difficult--I don't want to play with them)

-Ask the real age of the person I am about to do deeds with (ok, easy enough--but if they lied about their age to get in, they are likely not going to tell me the truth about that)

-Ask for various and sundry forms of RL credentials like picture ID, passports, etc. (easily faked or stolen from parents, unhappy play partners who want to know why I am IDing them, the utter absurdity of this option

-Gamble, thinking to self: what are the mathematical odds that I managed to find myself a minor whose parents are so apathetic that they don't police Junior's activities, then pray that my date for the evening has little chance of being a lying child. (seems to be the only really practical solution in practice, if indeed I am going to "practice"

-Avoid all areas in SL that are rated mature and no more cuddle cuddle spank spank. (I suppose I could do this. I like to shop and build furniture and wander around simulated forests in addition to adult time, but adult time is still central to my experience in SL)

I am hoping that this post does not come across as simply a dirty-minded thirty- something who is seeking to absolve himself of possible legal action or responsibility. I would though like to know better the RL laws regarding these matters and how they work. Are we all responsible for knowing every law in every state, federal laws, laws in other countries, and how these laws apply to the Internet? For instance, if my research today is correct, I understand under Florida's RL laws, RL "Joe" could say he was 21, look 21, I could believe for all the world that "Joe" is 21, "Joe" could have 20 forms of ID that say he is 21. If he is actually 16, I am as criminally negligent as if I had had sexual relations with him knowing he was 16 before I started.

-Does this apply to the Net?

-If so, if SL "Joe" is in Florida in RL and I am in say in RL Montana, does Florida still get to toss my butt into jail?....

-What if I am in Florida and SL Joe is in Montana?.....

-What if the server sits in in the state of Florida, SL "Joe" is in Pennsylvania and I am in Montana?...

I feel that I am, as part of the adult community called SL, that responsible for making sure those who are not adults are not there. I draw analogy to RL situations. At a dirty movie theater, were I to see someone who was clearly too young to be there, I would be seeing to it that this individual was ejected. Minors don't belong there. I don't buy booze or cigarettes for minors, because they are not supposed to have them. Sorry for this never-ending post, but I want to know, with all seriousness, I don't want to have hanky-panky with some knockout avitar I believe is an adult only to live the life of a convicted pedophile when I am not one!

PS...I over-think everything to death. Please keep that in mind if you want to reply to this post that I need to get a life or go to H**l!

FYI, particularly for those of us in Europe.

The European Commission launched The Safer Internet plus programme this year, with aims to promote a safer use of the internet and new online technologies, particularly for children.

The EC commissioned a public consultation in June 2008 to get input from all relevant stakeholders, the results of which will feed into the discussions which take place at the Safer Internet Forum scheduled for September 25-26 in Luxembourg.

I'm lucky enough to be one of the people attending the Forum, which is actually open to any stakeholders from NGOs, governments, researchers, industry representatives, including Internet Service Providers, mobile network operators, social networking sites, software developers.

The agenda for the two days is basically split as follows:

September 25:
Social Networking and Children
Age verification

September 26:
What do we know about Children's use of online technologies?
Media Rating – towards pan-European cross media rating and classification schemes

More information can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm

along with a registration page, if you're interested.

My personal view is that this is a complex issue, and that critics of "age verification" schemes have up until now had some basis for their criticisms.

I do however see this area as of crucial importance going forward, as the internet becomes more ubiquitous and immersive.

Hope this is of interest anyway.

..but you feel they do not, now?

Well that's all very good, but imagine how he'll feel in front of his canine pals when it all comes out that he's been dressing up as a cat...