Tim cracked down ICE tracking apps just last week because the US told him to do so. MR did not report on that. In contrast, when the EU puts pressure on Apple, MR makes sure we know.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Details App Store Changes to Comply With Texas Age Verification Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
regarding parental controls, can we get multiple users, for true separate spaces and siphoning of content
"Will somebody think about the kids?" is one of the easiest ways for politicians to get votes
The self-censorship on MR's part is pretty disappointing tbh. I get not wanting to moderate the comments on that article, but it should still be written with responses disabled. It's too important to avoid talking about.
As far as I know, bartenders don’t scan your ID and store it in a database on computer….or sell scans of your ID to biometric data miners…
Doesn’t really seem comparable, even if the underlying legal justification is the same.
Come to a bar in Louisiana some time, where your driver's license barcode gets scanned on entry
Note to self: never go to a bar in Louisiana.
Good to know!
You do not need to show ID just to walk into a grocery store. You only need to show an ID to buy age restricted products.
This Texas law not only requires that you show an ID to buy anything in the grocery store, but it requires the grocery store to keep a copy of your ID.
I don’t want to provide my ID to buy a gallon of milk. I don’t want the grocery store keeping a copy of my ID, just so I can buy a gallon of milk.
That is the real world comparison. It is unreasonable government overreach.
The reason this argument is false, is because the Texas government requires proof of compliance. The only way Apple can prove they are complying with the age verification requirement in a court of law is to retain verification records.
So in the end, this Texas law absolutely does require that Apple store IDs (or whatever they end up using for age verification).
Haha no, but I live in DC and see the NG standing around twiddling their thumbs every day.
Affirmative. Abbot is true piece of work! But, a good chunk of natives worship him like the second coming!
Appropriate to point that out as a reply to the analogy about R-rated movies.
Does the Texas law actually require the company to retain the copy of the ID? I recently scanned the bill and don't think I caught that detail.
It is easy to overlook.
The law requires “compliance to standard commercial practices” (I forget the exact wording, but it is something like that). Well standard commercial practices are to maintain records, because unless you keep a copy of the documents the user submitted, along with if you approved their account, how are you going to prove you are actually doing age verification if the state ever decides it wants to investigate your company. The self-enforcement Texas is granting the tech companies, necessitates the tech companies to maintain records.
This is in distinct contrast to industries where the state (be it at the town, county, or state level) hires a whole heap of enforcement officers. Example: bars, liquor stores, gas stations, etc where they just glance at your ID. Since these industries are actively policed by the state (in theory) they don’t have to store client records.
Last edited:
Okay, I see what you're saying. I think I'd noticed that phrase interpreted elsewhere as one of the law's more ambiguous elements, and, indeed, I'd have to say it looks like you're doing some interpretation there.
If tech companies are supposed to maintain this full-fledged presentable proof for enforcement checks, in what sense are they really self-enforcing in a way that your cited industries aren't?
Yes, it is a very self-protective interpretation of the law. Just to be clear though, it isn’t my interpretation, it is the standard interpretation. As in, it is what companies in this situation do as standard practice.
Regarding self-enforcement: you can read up more on this yourself. It is pretty common for large companies to be expected to self-enforce government regulation (As another example think of car manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, etc. They can simply state their vehicles meet all government safety regulations. The government doesn’t test the vehicles themselves or do anything to verify the vehicles actually do meet legal requirements. Of course any manufacture that plans on staying in business is going to do a whole bunch of testing and collect endless documentation to be able to prove their vehicles do in fact meet legal requirements, if anything ever happens).
Sure. Even a typical conformance strategy borne of common interpretation – even if a true expert might positively expect it from newcomers – isn't necessarily what the law requires.
If we've seen anything in recent years from big tech companies specifically – certainly social media companies among them – it's that they come to the table with different angles on compliance that sometimes contrast with each other, sometimes to downstream controversy specifically stemming from things like choosing not to retain user data for privacy reasons.
So they can distract us from the unreleased Epstein Files