It's going to take some more searching to find an article that shows what age verification looks like for newer Apple accounts. According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account and/or a credit card in your name in Apple Pay it might be enough to confirm you as 18+.
It links to fca.org, gov.uk, and racfonudation.org. I think the goal of this page is activism rather than journalism though, and the donation links are a much more apt way for privacy activism than ads like on that news site.
While I agree with the general argument that iOS shouldn’t limit the user’s freedom, it looks to me like Apple actually put in some effort to make this as privacy-preserving as possible.
The article somewhat glosses over it, but you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£. That one is widely accepted and it doesn’t contain unnecessary information that might cause trouble if it leaked (like for example a passport does). And 1 in 3 adults (according to the article) have an Apple account that’s old enough so that they will automatically be unlocked, no further documents needed.
The article strongly accuses iOS of being a walled garden, but I don’t see that as a particularly strong argument after iOS being locked down for ~20 years now.
And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
The PASS card features your name and photo, it's an ID by any other name.
You must have a very warped perspective of social reality if you think it should be acceptable to force every adult to show their papers before they can do anything in modern society - and all that just so you can avoid your parenting duties. And I say that as a parent.
I'm not worried about my parenting duties. I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not. That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
And yes, the PASS card has name and photo. But no adress, no social security number or secret ID or equivalent. If your PASS card leaks, nobody can create a bank account in your name. If your passport leaks, they can. That's the difference in privacy, seen in action.
> because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
That’s a strange argument. The government or anyone doesn’t have a mandate to ensure everyone has the exact same experience. Differences in upbringing are normal. I didn’t have a TV growing up while most of my friends did. It might have felt unfair at the time, but it wouldn’t justify the government forcing my parents to get one -> overreach.
Your phone should not have any business whatsoever collecting, checking, or verifying the age of the person using it.
> And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
If you cared about your children, you would be against this. Otherwise you're fighting against your children's future; their privacy, their sanity, their ability to participate in a functioning democracy.
iOS is a walled garden and it will be as strong an argument as ever, regardless of how long iOS has been a walled garden for. Also, don't you see how having to buy your privacy for 15£, even for 0.01£ is ridiculous? And to your last point - a parent can easily bypass all that bullshit if they wanted. They could let their kids use a normal computer without any walled gardens. What's to stop them from seeing 4chan or motherless or anything like that? Nothing. And nothing will unless you force all of society into your dystopic vision of a safe world for kids.
I activated ADP as soon as it was available here, and I was hoping things would work out, and friends and family who missed the opportunity would be able to use it by now as well.
I’m not pleased with this move, but its implementation has me wondering. I barely keep up with anything these days so I was taken by surprise after I updated. And, probably due to the decrepitude, I was annoyed for a few days that my phone had been nerfed and I had to roll back, before trying probably the first thing any younger person locked out would.
I’m curious, if there’s anyone who hasn’t verified a spare account, if they would point their phone at things? It might take a moment, and there’s no real feedback until the phone accepts your evidence. People have said it takes other people’s credit cards and ID, but I’m wondering if it’ll accept a pet passport too, or really what the limit is.
This will probably be sneaked in, in more countries under the banner of age verification since more countries are proposing laws than ban children younger than 16 from social media.
I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices. And that Apple and google are “forced” to do it. They of course have their own gains.
It competes with China. But it's not like we can easily switch countries because of stupid laws, so what remains is to challrnge them. It only gives the wrong ideas to other wannabe autocrats.
As much as I'd like to see Apple fight this, shouldn't the blame be placed on the governments for compelling this, rather than on Apple? What is the alternative, pulling out of the UK?
While I'd love this hard-line approach, as it might make other countries think twice, the stockholders probably wouldn't love it.
> Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 apply to websites and online services — not to entire phone operating systems.
Doesn't this go back to companies like Meta lobbying to push the responsibility to the OS instead of taking it on themselves? I read they did that in the US, I can only assume they did it in the UK as well.
Frankly, I'd rather have Apple qualify me as over 18 one time, and pass a simple boolean to a site vs having to upload proof (an ID, photos...) to every website I want to use. This may be the lesser of two evils.
Could there not be a reason that Apple made this choice involving their own legal risk? Sometimes what a law actually requires is up to what happens in court in the future.
It's probably related to the fact that Apple doesn't see itself selling devices, you don't really buy and own the phone. You rent a device from them and the Apple account is the doorway to that subscription plan.
I'm guessing Apple made the calculation that doing this was cheaper than litigating it. The slop submission in OP makes the claim that the law doesn't apply, but I skimmed it already and came to the conclusion it could apply and it will be up to the courts to make the precedent.
'internet services' is extremely broad and could include apple's own appstore, icloud services, maybe even their browser could be considered software acting on behalf of a provider.
With all this being said, I do think Apple probably could have fought it and even if they had to leave the UK market, they'd still be fine. They rely on China and South Korea to manufacture their devices so they would not be fine without these markets.
For most people the age verification won't be a problem. And anyway, there's always the option of acquiring and using an Android phone if you're unhappy with Apple's offering.
I see "Big Brother Watch" has their own narrative to push though.
The comment that you are replying to is saying that it's not exclusive to Apple and gives a non-Apple example. Your link has zero instances of the string "Apple". What am I missing.
> The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc
What do people expect when handing over their computing to a for-profit company? You can use various services where you knowingly hand over some of your data or offload a computational load, but with Apple it's like you're handing off the keys to your house, the plumbing, the electric wiring, the bricks, the alarm system and everything else to 1 entity. And you get upset when you realize you're just renting a property with less assurance you'd get from a slumlord in the ghetto. And for a lot of people that Apple property is their main computing property. Not a vacation home away from their desktop. Once they're evicted, once the slumlord disables the heating, increases the price of water or forbids you from inviting people, you have no other recourse.
This has more to do with the UK government than a "for-profit company". Apple has been one of the biggest forces pushing back against this kind of thing forever, at least in the US where companies still have rights.
No it doesn't. The UK government instituted age checks for social media, Apple didn't like the UK government and enabled age checks for the OS, wanting to blame the government for it. It's done this sort of thing before.
I would rather prove my age to Apple than [insert random website].
I think that’s what Apple is banking on. They sell privacy as a feature of their products, and I’m grateful for that.
This article is not great. It doesn't link to anything other than itself and two of those links are "donate" and "subscribe".
I found this Apple Insider page with more information and an actual description of how it works, from someone doing journalism instead of soliciting donations and subscriptions: https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/02/25/how-age-verificat...
It's going to take some more searching to find an article that shows what age verification looks like for newer Apple accounts. According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account and/or a credit card in your name in Apple Pay it might be enough to confirm you as 18+.
It links to fca.org, gov.uk, and racfonudation.org. I think the goal of this page is activism rather than journalism though, and the donation links are a much more apt way for privacy activism than ads like on that news site.
While I agree with the general argument that iOS shouldn’t limit the user’s freedom, it looks to me like Apple actually put in some effort to make this as privacy-preserving as possible.
The article somewhat glosses over it, but you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£. That one is widely accepted and it doesn’t contain unnecessary information that might cause trouble if it leaked (like for example a passport does). And 1 in 3 adults (according to the article) have an Apple account that’s old enough so that they will automatically be unlocked, no further documents needed.
The article strongly accuses iOS of being a walled garden, but I don’t see that as a particularly strong argument after iOS being locked down for ~20 years now.
And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
The PASS card features your name and photo, it's an ID by any other name.
You must have a very warped perspective of social reality if you think it should be acceptable to force every adult to show their papers before they can do anything in modern society - and all that just so you can avoid your parenting duties. And I say that as a parent.
I'm not worried about my parenting duties. I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not. That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
And yes, the PASS card has name and photo. But no adress, no social security number or secret ID or equivalent. If your PASS card leaks, nobody can create a bank account in your name. If your passport leaks, they can. That's the difference in privacy, seen in action.
Some people just want government to parent them.
> because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
That’s a strange argument. The government or anyone doesn’t have a mandate to ensure everyone has the exact same experience. Differences in upbringing are normal. I didn’t have a TV growing up while most of my friends did. It might have felt unfair at the time, but it wouldn’t justify the government forcing my parents to get one -> overreach.
Your phone should not have any business whatsoever collecting, checking, or verifying the age of the person using it.
> And as a parent, I know that if child protection is opt-in, there’ll be a huge fight about it, because some other parents won’t activate it, which then makes the situation unfair for the kids. I’d much rather have it on by default so that all kids are treated the same.
If you cared about your children, you would be against this. Otherwise you're fighting against your children's future; their privacy, their sanity, their ability to participate in a functioning democracy.
iOS is a walled garden and it will be as strong an argument as ever, regardless of how long iOS has been a walled garden for. Also, don't you see how having to buy your privacy for 15£, even for 0.01£ is ridiculous? And to your last point - a parent can easily bypass all that bullshit if they wanted. They could let their kids use a normal computer without any walled gardens. What's to stop them from seeing 4chan or motherless or anything like that? Nothing. And nothing will unless you force all of society into your dystopic vision of a safe world for kids.
I activated ADP as soon as it was available here, and I was hoping things would work out, and friends and family who missed the opportunity would be able to use it by now as well.
I’m not pleased with this move, but its implementation has me wondering. I barely keep up with anything these days so I was taken by surprise after I updated. And, probably due to the decrepitude, I was annoyed for a few days that my phone had been nerfed and I had to roll back, before trying probably the first thing any younger person locked out would.
I’m curious, if there’s anyone who hasn’t verified a spare account, if they would point their phone at things? It might take a moment, and there’s no real feedback until the phone accepts your evidence. People have said it takes other people’s credit cards and ID, but I’m wondering if it’ll accept a pet passport too, or really what the limit is.
This will probably be sneaked in, in more countries under the banner of age verification since more countries are proposing laws than ban children younger than 16 from social media.
I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices. And that Apple and google are “forced” to do it. They of course have their own gains.
> I am all for the ban of social media. But I am afraid that it will give us more government meddling and interfering on our devices.
A “ban” is literally government interference.
Pick a lane.
A ban explicitly requires government interference. That's what a ban is.
Why have Western countries introduced so many laws that look like China’s? The government controls more and more individuals
Because the West no longer competes with USSR.
It competes with China. But it's not like we can easily switch countries because of stupid laws, so what remains is to challrnge them. It only gives the wrong ideas to other wannabe autocrats.
The amazing irony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)
As much as I'd like to see Apple fight this, shouldn't the blame be placed on the governments for compelling this, rather than on Apple? What is the alternative, pulling out of the UK?
While I'd love this hard-line approach, as it might make other countries think twice, the stockholders probably wouldn't love it.
> Laws like the Online Safety Act 2023 apply to websites and online services — not to entire phone operating systems.
Doesn't this go back to companies like Meta lobbying to push the responsibility to the OS instead of taking it on themselves? I read they did that in the US, I can only assume they did it in the UK as well.
Frankly, I'd rather have Apple qualify me as over 18 one time, and pass a simple boolean to a site vs having to upload proof (an ID, photos...) to every website I want to use. This may be the lesser of two evils.
Could there not be a reason that Apple made this choice involving their own legal risk? Sometimes what a law actually requires is up to what happens in court in the future.
It's probably related to the fact that Apple doesn't see itself selling devices, you don't really buy and own the phone. You rent a device from them and the Apple account is the doorway to that subscription plan.
I'm guessing Apple made the calculation that doing this was cheaper than litigating it. The slop submission in OP makes the claim that the law doesn't apply, but I skimmed it already and came to the conclusion it could apply and it will be up to the courts to make the precedent.
Part 5 is too broadly written: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/part/5
'internet services' is extremely broad and could include apple's own appstore, icloud services, maybe even their browser could be considered software acting on behalf of a provider.
Now of course they could be stretching, but OFCOM has their own overview that digs into just how broad they consider the legislation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...
With all this being said, I do think Apple probably could have fought it and even if they had to leave the UK market, they'd still be fine. They rely on China and South Korea to manufacture their devices so they would not be fine without these markets.
The joys of locked bootloaders strike again.
For most people the age verification won't be a problem. And anyway, there's always the option of acquiring and using an Android phone if you're unhappy with Apple's offering.
I see "Big Brother Watch" has their own narrative to push though.
Why do you think this is exclusive to Apple? Android is rolling out age verification as well while simultaneously making side loading more difficult.
This isn't a legal thing, it's Apple being Apple. The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_age_verification_in_the...
The comment that you are replying to is saying that it's not exclusive to Apple and gives a non-Apple example. Your link has zero instances of the string "Apple". What am I missing.
> The law is about platforms that deal in pornography, self harm, etc
So...not exclusive to Apple.
>I see "Big Brother Watch" has their own narrative to push though.
The narrative that people have a right to privacy and we should prevent government overreach?
Age requirements for managing an Apple Account in the UK
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/126788
What do people expect when handing over their computing to a for-profit company? You can use various services where you knowingly hand over some of your data or offload a computational load, but with Apple it's like you're handing off the keys to your house, the plumbing, the electric wiring, the bricks, the alarm system and everything else to 1 entity. And you get upset when you realize you're just renting a property with less assurance you'd get from a slumlord in the ghetto. And for a lot of people that Apple property is their main computing property. Not a vacation home away from their desktop. Once they're evicted, once the slumlord disables the heating, increases the price of water or forbids you from inviting people, you have no other recourse.
This has more to do with the UK government than a "for-profit company". Apple has been one of the biggest forces pushing back against this kind of thing forever, at least in the US where companies still have rights.
No it doesn't. The UK government instituted age checks for social media, Apple didn't like the UK government and enabled age checks for the OS, wanting to blame the government for it. It's done this sort of thing before.
Because social media is embedded into many apps.
People expect companies to serve those who deliver said profit?