{"id":128276,"date":"2023-07-07T16:50:55","date_gmt":"2023-07-07T20:50:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/?p=128276"},"modified":"2023-07-07T17:39:36","modified_gmt":"2023-07-07T21:39:36","slug":"kosa-a-bad-idea-for-online-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/index.php\/kosa-a-bad-idea-for-online-safety\/","title":{"rendered":"KOSA: A Bad Idea for Online Safety"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"KOSA:The Kids Online Safety Act<\/strong>, known as KOSA, is another half-assed publicity grab<\/strong>. The politicians fail to address the root cause of the problem – data collection<\/strong>. We can all agree that social media is bad for kids. There is enough proof from multiple<\/a>\u00a0studies<\/a>\u00a0and former social media company employees.<\/a> Therefore, KOSA is not the answer. It will infringe on the rights and interests of all internet users.<\/p>\n

Kids Online Safety Act<\/h3>\n

\"Two-tierTo begin with, the Kids Online Safety Act<\/a><\/strong>, known as KOSA introduced by Senators Richard Blumenthal<\/a> (D) and Marsha Blackburn<\/a> (R), would establish a two-tier Internet in the U.S. The bill requires that sites that are ‘likely to be accessed by kids<\/em>‘ act in the “best interest of users who are 16 or younger.”<\/em> That means that all platforms would be responsible for mitigating the risk of physical or emotional harm to young users. This includes “the promotion of self-harm or suicide, encouragement of addictive behavior, enabling of online bullying or predatory marketing.<\/em>” Sound nice; however, KOSA is not the solution we need. Here are some of the reasons to oppose KOSA:<\/p>\n

Kids Online Safety Act safety<\/h3>\n

\"\"The KOSA requirements would mandate that platforms have parental controls. These government-mandated controls<\/strong> could be harmful to kids in abusive situations. According<\/a> to Fight for the Future<\/a>, a coalition\u00a0of over 50 civil society groups, \u201cKOSA risks subjecting teens who are experiencing domestic violence and parental abuse to additional forms of digital surveillance and control that could prevent these vulnerable youth from reaching out for help or support.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Additionally, the KOSA requirements would endanger VPNs<\/strong> (one of the government’s favorite boogey-techs<\/a><\/em>). The group wrote; \u201c… by creating strong incentives to filter and enable parental control over the content minors can access, KOSA could also jeopardize young people\u2019s access to end-to-end encrypted technologies, which they depend on to access resources related to to keep their data safe from bad actors<\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

KOSA is government censorship<\/h3>\n

\"seekingKOSA would give the President control over what people see<\/strong> online. The government would create a “Kids Online Safety Council”<\/a> that would advise the government on implementing and enforcing KOSA. As a result, the legislation’s requirement to restrict access to topics such as sex education, LGBTQ issues, and mental health<\/a> from minors<\/a> could cause platforms KOSA could force platforms to self-censor just to avoid the hassle and costs.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Fight for the Future writes that censorship would be politically driven.<\/strong> \u201cOnline services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make<\/a> political<\/a> points<\/a><\/strong>… KOSA would cut off another vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

KOSA encourages more data collection<\/h3>\n

\"incentivizeAccording to Fight for the Future, the bill would incentivize sites to collect even more information<\/strong> about children to verify their ages and place further restrictions on minors\u2019 accounts. They explain,<\/p>\n

\u201cAge verification may require users to provide platforms with personally identifiable information such as date of birth and government-issued identification documents, which can threaten users\u2019 privacy, including through the risk of data breaches, and chill their willingness to access sensitive information online because they cannot do so anonymously.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Therefore, they conclude, \u201cRather than age-gating privacy settings and safety tools to apply only to minors, Congress should focus on ensuring that all users, regardless of age, benefit from strong privacy protections by passing comprehensive privacy legislation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kids Online Safety Act unintended consequences<\/h3>\n

\"unintendedKOSA would also create unintended consequences. The unintended consequences include driving children to use less secure or more harmful platforms<\/strong>. The\u00a0Kids Online Safety Act would make kids more vulnerable to online predators who could exploit their age verification information.<\/strong> It would also undermine the trust and communication between children and parents, as well as between platforms and users.<\/p>\n

rb-<\/em><\/h3>\n

There are valid<\/a>\u00a0concerns<\/a> about<\/a> the impact of social media on us all. But the Kids Online Safety Act misses the point. Congress should be targeting data collection. Nearly all social media platforms and online businesses collect personal data from their users. T<\/em>he EFF<\/a> points out<\/a> that all social media firms harvest and monetize our personal data and incentivize other online businesses to do the same. The result is that detailed information about us is widely available to purchasers, thieves, and government subpoenas.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Consider\u00a0location data brokers<\/a>, for example. Our apps collect detailed records<\/strong> of our online activities without our knowledge or genuine consent. The app developers sell it to data brokers, who will in turn sell it to anyone who will pay for it<\/strong>. An election denier<\/a>\u00a0bought it to try to prove voting fraud. One broker sold data on who had visited\u00a0reproductive health facilities<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

If a bad actor or the government wanted to buy this data<\/strong>, it could probably find a way to do so. Collecting more data will not stop the bad actors from acquiring PII. <\/em><\/p>\n

The better approach is to limit how all businesses collect personal data. This would de-incentive data collection and reduce the supply of data for bad actors.<\/em><\/p>\n

Everybody should be allowed to make informed choices based on their own values and preferences.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How you can help Ukraine!<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Related article<\/strong><\/p>\n