Tag: think of the children

France BANS smoking in nearly all outdoor spaces

France will ban smoking in all outdoor places that can be frequented by children, like beaches, parks and bus stops, the health and family minister said on Thursday.

‘Where there are children, tobacco must disappear,’ Catherine Vautrin said in an interview published by regional outlet Ouest-France.

The restrictions will come into force on July 1, and failure to comply with the draconian ban could result in a £114 fine, the minister said, adding that children have the ‘right to breathe clean air.’

Cigarettes will also be banned in areas close to schools to prevent students from ‘smoking in front of their establishments.’ 

The ban does not apply to cafe terraces – or include electronic cigarettes. 

The government’s National Anti-Tobacco Programme for 2023 to 2027 proposed a smoking ban similar to the one announced by Vautrin, calling for France to ‘rise to the challenge of a tobacco-free generation from 2032.’ 

But anti-tobacco organisations had voiced concern the authorities were dragging their feet on implementing the measures. 

Vautrin said there were no plans to place additional taxes on cigarettes ‘at the moment’. 

Keep reading

Texas Mandates Digital ID To Access App Store Apps

Texas has moved to the forefront of a national campaign to regulate children’s access to digital platforms by mandating that Apple and Google verify the ages of all users on their app stores.

Under a new law signed by Governor Greg Abbott, set to take effect January 1, 2026, those under 18 will be required to obtain parental consent before downloading apps or making in-app purchases. The measure has been pitched as a way to protect minors, but privacy advocates warn it could come at the expense of everyone’s digital freedom.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The requirement places app store operators in the role of gatekeepers, forcing them to gather and store sensitive personal information to determine user ages.

Opponents argue that such age checks do not just affect young users, (explicit adult content apps are already banned from app stores) and they also undermine anonymity online by tying a person’s digital presence to a verified real-world identity. That level of surveillance risks chilling free expression and stifling dissent by making it harder for people to speak or access information without fear of being identified.

Efforts to regulate youth access to apps and online services are gaining traction elsewhere as well. Utah enacted a similar policy earlier this year, and Congress is weighing federal legislation. Texas lawmakers are also advancing a separate bill that would prohibit users under 18 from accessing social media altogether.

While the law does state that app developers should delete the personal data provided by the app store provider, the wider problem is that users will have to trust that an app developer will actually do so. App store providers such as Apple and Google will have to retain sensitive data on its users.

Supporters of the Texas law argue that app stores are uniquely positioned to serve as the central checkpoint for age validation. Meta, Snap, and X have praised the move.

Keep reading

Congressional Bill Aimed At Protecting Kids Online Could Cause Headaches For Marijuana Businesses

A newly filed bill in Congress aimed at protecting children online could create headaches for advertisers trying to promote legal marijuana and other regulated substances.

Titled the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the bipartisan proposal—from Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) as well as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—would create a “duty of care” for online platforms such as social media and streaming video services, requiring them to take steps to prevent access to potentially sensitive content by minors.

That includes advertisements for cannabis products and certain other drugs and services.

A factsheet from Blackburn’s office says the duty of care “requires social media companies to prevent and mitigate certain harms that they know their platforms and products are causing to young users.”

The sponsors say the legislation is necessary to protect children from pernicious practices that keep “kids glued to their screens” for hours a day, alleging that “Big Tech is trying every method possible to keep them scrolling, clicking ads, and sharing every detail of their life.”

The 63-page bill “targets the harms that online platforms cause through their own product and business decisions,” the factsheet says, “like how they design their products and applications to keep kids online for as long as possible, train their algorithms to exploit vulnerabilities, and target children with advertising.”

Much of the proposal is aimed at limiting content that fuels behavioral health disorders. Platforms would need to “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate the following harms to minors,” it says, listing eating and drug use disorders, suicidal ideation, violence and harassment, sexual exploitation, financial harm and others.

As for controlled substances, online platforms would be prohibited from facilitating the “advertising of narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol to an individual that the covered platform knows is a minor.”

The provision around drug use lists the “distribution, sale, or use of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, or alcohol” as risks that platforms would need to actively guard minors against.

Video streaming platforms meanwhile, would be required “to employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor.”

“Big Tech platforms have shown time and time again they will always prioritize their bottom line over the safety of our children, and I’ve heard too many heartbreaking stories to count from parents who have lost a child because these companies have refused to make their platforms safer by default,” Blackburn said in a press release about the legislation.

Keep reading

KOSA Reintroduced: Child “Safety” Bill Raises Alarms Over Internet Surveillance, Digital ID, and Free Speech Risks

Senators have once again put forward the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), reviving a bill that, if enacted, would radically reshape how Americans experience the internet.

Promoted as a measure to protect children, this latest version now carries the backing of Apple, a tech giant that has publicly endorsed the legislation as a meaningful step toward improving online safety.

But behind the bipartisan sales pitch and industry support lies a framework that risks expanding government control over online content and eroding user privacy through mandated age verification and surveillance infrastructure.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

KOSA is often described as a child protection bill, requiring platforms to limit exposure to content that could contribute to mental health issues such as depression or disordered eating.

What is less emphasized by its sponsors is how the bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and sue platforms over speech that’s deemed “harmful” to minors.

Though lawmakers insist the bill does not authorize the censorship of content, it effectively places government pressure on websites to sanitize what users see, or face liability. Such chilling effects rarely need explicit censorship orders to shape outcomes.

Keep reading

EU nations seek mandatory social media age checks

France, Spain, and Greece are advocating for mandatory age verification on social media platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Elon Musk’s X, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

The proposed rules would require all internet-connected devices to be equipped with age verification technology. Digital services ministers from the three EU member states are coordinating the initiative ahead of a meeting with their counterparts from the bloc on June 6, a document cited by Bloomberg said.

The three nations reportedly argue that the “lack of proper and widespread age-verification mechanisms” makes it difficult to effectively enforce age limits. They aim to leverage the economic power of the EU’s 450 million consumers to compel tech companies to implement robust verification systems, according to the report.

French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed on Tuesday his support for mandatory age verification for teenagers registering on social media platforms, stating that online networks have contributed to suffering and mental health issues among young people.

“We must protect our children,” he told TF1, adding that age verification on social networks should be imposed.

According to Bloomberg, the European Commission, along with several bloc members, is already developing pilot projects to boost parental controls and age verification. However, their efforts are being hindered by regulatory differences across EU countries and the ease with which users can access social networks from outside the bloc.

Keep reading

Florida Rejects Controversial Encryption Backdoor Bill

Legislators in the US state of Florida have shot down a bid to introduce a law that would have mandated encryption backdoors.

The outcome of the effort – known as SB 868: Social Media Use by Minors – means that the backdoors would have allowed encryption to be weakened in this fundamental way affecting all platforms where minors might choose to open an account.

As the fear-mongering campaign against encryption is being reiterated over and over again, it’s worth repeating – there is no known way of undermining encryption for any one category of users, without leaving the entire internet open and at the mercy of anything from government spies, to plain criminals.

And that affects both people’s communications and transactions.

Not to mention that while framing such radical proposals as needed for a declaratively equally large goal to achieve – the safety of youth online – in reality, by shuttering encryption, young people and everyone else are negatively affected.

If anything, it would make everyone online less secure, and, by nature of the world –  young people more so than others.

And so, Florida’s Senate on announced that SB 868 is now “indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration.”

The idea behind the proposal was to allow law enforcement access to communications on a social platform – by forcing a company to build in backdoors any time law enforcement came up either with a warrant – or merely a subpoena.

Keep reading

New GOP Bill Seeks To Take Sledgehammer To Online Porn Industry

Congressional Republicans will introduce legislation Thursday that would severely crack down on internet pornography and potentially deal a major blow to the online porn industry.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Republican Illinois Rep. Mary Miller’s Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court’s 1973 “Miller Test” for determining what qualifies as obscene, according to background on the bill exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The bill would pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn.

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” Lee told the DCNF. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee and Miller have been leading advocates in Congress to take on internet pornography at the federal level and protect children from exposure to online porn.

The lawmakers’ bill would make obscenity easier to prosecute by altering the three-pronged approach known as the Miller Test from the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. California, according to the background on the bill. The Miller Test determined content to be obscene if it appeals to “prurient interests,” describes sexual conduct “in a patently obscene way” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller are seeking to update that definition in part by changing the second prong about portraying sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way … specifically defined by the applicable state law.” Instead, their bill would determine content to be obscene if it depicts or describes “actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.”

Lee has justified the legislation in part by arguing that the Supreme Court’s “Miller Test” is no longer applicable in an era where porn is primarily viewed online and easy for children to access.

Keep reading

Florida’s New Social Media Bill Says the Quiet Part Out Loud and Demands an Encryption Backdoor

At least Florida’s SB 868/HB 743, “Social Media Use By Minors” bill isn’t beating around the bush when it states that it would require “social media platforms to provide a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption when law enforcement obtains a subpoena.” Usually these sorts of sweeping mandates are hidden behind smoke and mirrors, but this time it’s out in the open: Florida wants a backdoor into any end-to-end encrypted social media platforms that allow accounts for minors. This would likely lead to companies not offering end-to-end encryption to minors at all, making them less safe online.

Encryption is the best tool we have to protect our communication online. It’s just as important for young people as it is for everyone else, and the idea that Florida can “protect” minors by making them less safe is dangerous and dumb.

The bill is not only privacy-invasive, it’s also asking for the impossible. As breaches like Salt Typhoon demonstrate, you cannot provide a backdoor for just the “good guys,” and you certainly cannot do so for just a subset of users under a specific age. After all, minors are likely speaking to their parents and other family members and friends, and they deserve the same sorts of privacy for those conversations as anyone else. Whether social media companies provide “a mechanism to decrypt end-to-end encryption” or choose not to provide end-to-end encryption to minors at all, there’s no way that doesn’t harm the privacy of everyone.

If this all sounds familiar, that’s because we saw a similar attempt from an Attorney General in Nevada last year. Then, like now, the reasoning is that law enforcement needs access to these messages during criminal investigations. But this doesn’t hold true in practice.

In our amicus brief in Nevada, we point out that there are solid arguments that “content oblivious” investigation methods—like user reporting— are “considered more useful than monitoring the contents of users’ communications when it comes to detecting nearly every kind of online abuse.” That remains just as true in Florida today.

Law enforcement can and does already conduct plenty of investigations involving encrypted messages, and even with end-to-end encryption, law enforcement can potentially access the contents of most messages on the sender or receiver’s devices, particularly when they have access to the physical device. The bill also includes measures prohibiting minors from accessing any sort of ephemeral messaging features, like view once options or disappearing messages. But even with those features, users can still report messages or save them. Targeting specific features does nothing to protect the security of minors, but it would potentially harm the privacy of everyone.

Keep reading

Court blocks California law on children’s online safety

A federal judge said California cannot enforce a state law meant to shield children from online content that could harm them mentally or physically.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled on Thursday that the trade group NetChoice deserved a preliminary injunction because it was likely to show the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act violated its members’ free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

NetChoice said the law would turn its 39 members including Amazon.com (AMZN.O), Google (GOOGL.O), Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms (META.O), Netflix (NFLX.O) and Elon Musk’s X into state-deputized censors, and “censor the internet under the guise of privacy.”

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment.

Ambika Kumar, a lawyer for NetChoice, called the law “a breathtaking act of unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, content-based censorship. We are pleased to see it enjoined.”

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022, California’s law required businesses to create reports addressing whether their online platforms could harm children, and take steps before launch to reduce the risks.

It also required businesses to estimate ages of child users and configure privacy settings for them, or provide high settings for everyone. Civil fines could reach $2,500 per child for negligence and $7,500 per child for intentional violations.

Keep reading

Virginia GOP Governor Claims Legalizing Marijuana Sales Would Harm Children And Increase Crime

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) emphasized during his State of the Commonwealth address that he’s not interested in cooperating with lawmakers to legalize marijuana sales in the state, claiming that doing so would hurt children, worsen mental health and increase violent crime.

“Strong communities work to prevent harmful drug use,” the governor said during the speech on Monday.

Use, possession and limited cultivation of cannabis by adults are already legal in Virginia, the result of a Democrat-led proposal approved by lawmakers in 2021. But Republicans, after winning control of the House and governor’s office later that year, subsequently blocked the required reenactment of a regulatory framework for retail sales. Since then, illicit stores have sprung up to meet consumer demand.

Supporters of regulating commercial sales in the state say the move would not create a cannabis market in Virginia but instead regulate the state’s existing illicit market, which some estimates value at nearly $3 billion. But Youngkin has rejected the idea, issuing a veto of a legal sales measure passed by lawmakers after Democrats retook control of the legislature last year.

“Everyone knows where I stand on establishing a retail marijuana market,” Youngkin said in his speech. “Let’s work together on other issues where we can find common ground.”

Keep reading