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 funding 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.
> I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not.
Different families can choose to raise their children differently. Please let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids.
There are parents who are more strict with their kids than you are in ways you don’t agree with. I guarantee you wouldn’t be happy if they were lobbying to force your kids to obey their chosen set of rules because they didn’t want “inequality”.
If your passport leaks, they can [create a bank account]
This seems like a country-specific problem. In Japan, even if opening an online bank account, a photocopy of a passport is simply insufficient to pass identity verification. Additionally, most country passports contain an IC chip that can be used for attestation. Any eKYC system that does not attempt reading data from the IC chip is fundamentally broken.
But are you not worried about the democratic precedent that treating citizens as de-facto minors and arbitrarily withholding information, with little to no oversight, will set? And your kids seeing the fully realized end of that slippery slope ?
What if your government decides that anything LGBT is taboo for kids[1]? Or that informations about say, ongoing genocides, is deemed too graphic for kids.
Won't that also increase the blast radius to people who didn't bother justifying their age, even though they supposedly also have the right to vote?
Also parent in the UK - strong disagree, it’s part of our parental responsibilities to set this up, not doing it is the same as not watching a newly walking baby on the stairs (/etc). Compromising everyone’s privacy for a subset of lazy parents is a failing of society.
Relatively few newly walking babies have peers whose parents allow them to use stairs unattended making them feel socially excluded for not also using stairs unattended.
Ignoring the existence of peer pressure and calling parents lazy is a failing of individuals.
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.
I’m a parent and I think all of these arguments are ridiculous. You shouldn’t need the force of government across the nation to set boundaries for your own kids.
It’s also getting kind of silly to pretend that these laws are going to stop those other kids’ parents from simply age-verifying their phones for them. These fantasies where the government passes a law and suddenly every parent and child in the country settle into the exact same social norms are just that - fantasy.
Thanks for your comment. It's good to hear from people that want this, as to understand which voters politicians are relying on for support for passing this at a legal level.
However, I fundamentally and ideologically disagree with your views on the matter, and I think your views are incompatible with a free society with checks and balances, and frankly, draconian.
> 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.
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.
> you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£
If there's one thing the UK internet has taught me is that some brits will throw a fit for every minor inconvenience they face
"Dole appoint at 10am 30min from home!?" Means it's an unsurmountable challenge from them as they might be hangover from the previous day and what do you mean I have to pay the bus fare to get there?
Of course the privacy point stands. But their complaint is not about privacy, is about the effort
The real problem was never just checking age imo. It was deciding who deals with mistakes, who gets blamed when access is blocked wrongly, and how a normal user is supposed to fix it.
Moving that to the phone makes it look cleaner, but mostly just pushes the mess into a layer people have even less control over.
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.
The west believes "Data is the new oil". The west can't compete with China or India in the amount of data their citizens can generate because they are the world's most populous country. China already has a huge head start because it has already been collecting and data-mining its citizen's data. Attempts to make stronger privacy laws and sovereign data laws in many western countries will also impede data collections. But state sharing of data - through 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes and 14 Eyes - along with BigTech data could give the west an edge. (The west already has partial access to indian data because it leaks through lax data privacy laws, ill-thought indian government policies and BigTech. But Chinese data is truly firewalled.)
So yes, you are right that we will see our democracies embrace more and more control over us citizens, limiting our rights, while our governments emulate China. This is unfortunately because the west believes that being a leader in technology is essential to retain its powers.
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.
I can get you residency in a number of countries in about 30 to 60 days. It’s remarkably easy to change countries an American friend of mine has over 15 residencies leading to over 10 passports. No citizenship by investment non sense either.
I can only speak for the USA, but the first-past-the-post voting plus a very strong bias towards rural areas and former slave-owner states, results in a government that poorly represents any of its constituents.
I don't know if even right-wingers like this age verification crap, maybe they put up with it from Republicans so they can vote against abortion and I put up with it from Democrats so I can vote for abortion.
Of course, if you vote for a third party, you're spoilering your side. Every country is a group project run by underpaid people to try to please millions of uninformed haters. Still better than dying of dysentery, I guess.
Many of the red states are passing age verification laws to view porn sites. However 100% of the sites are either ignoring the laws if they are not in the US or easily accessible via a VPN.
Vote with your feet, with an American passport you can choose from a multitude of countries each offering the politics of your choice. You can even mix and match.
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.
One silver lining this is finally going to push me to switch to a dedicated camera and some niche unrestricted Linux or graphene device as a phone. Goodbye iPhone. (I say this as someone with an Apple account old enough to auto “qualify”, how lucky).
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.
Fuck the bureaucrats responsible for this. I’m so sick of being completely powerless to fight any of this, being forced to sit and watch. Writing to my MP changes nothing. Signing petitions does nothing. The Government doesn’t give a fuck. They’ve had so many golden opportunities to differentiate themselves from the Tories and all they’ve done is carry the torch.
I will vote for any party that promises to rewind this crap, I don’t care what other policies they have. Enough of the nannying.
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.
You can blame the government as much as you like, but this is actually has to do with british nature, they have an obsessive need for control, and if you worked with some you will immediately notice how they will try to make all sort of policies and shit to control the other party, all while they pretend they are open about hearing other’s opinions. So it kinda backfired, what goes around comes around.
Apple isn't doing shit except for following the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
I will edit this to say, since I'm sure people are out there who will make this point: yes, I read the article. I disagree with it. "Not required by the OS" Well that isn't going to matter much when Apple gets hit with a big fat fine for "allowing" underage users on social media.
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
Welcome to HN, you must be new here. Many readers will correctly identify that "don't worry, the only other competitor will surely not follow suit" is a poor argument, and will recognize that an ad hominem against a privacy advocacy organization won't go far on a hacker forum.
And I would rather have the _choice_ whether to prove my age to Apple or not. I think if it were optional, with the additional option of "share my age with websites & apps", nobody would have an issue with it.
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.
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 funding than ads like on that news site.
I was looking for links or information about the age restrictions, not the other topics they were injecting.
An article about the age restrictions should at least have some supporting evidence, or at minimum some screenshots like the article I linked.
>According to that article if you have a long-standing Apple account ...
I can confirm that is the case.
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.
Some people just want government to parent them.
Then you’ve never been to China
So if someone kicks you in the nuts (apt for your username) you shouldn’t be mad because some other person 10000km away got shot?
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.
> That's why it is in my interest if other (lazier) parents are forced to comply.
You don't need to worry about "lazier". I don't think that exists in the context of your concerns.
> I am worried about the inequality created for the kids if I am strict about rules, but other parents are not.
Different families can choose to raise their children differently. Please let other parents make their own parenting choices for their own kids.
There are parents who are more strict with their kids than you are in ways you don’t agree with. I guarantee you wouldn’t be happy if they were lobbying to force your kids to obey their chosen set of rules because they didn’t want “inequality”.
If those restrictions are so good for children, wouldn't it be in your interest to enforce them - even when other parents do not?
Or are you worried about your kids getting an unfair advantage over unrestricted ones?
But are you not worried about the democratic precedent that treating citizens as de-facto minors and arbitrarily withholding information, with little to no oversight, will set? And your kids seeing the fully realized end of that slippery slope ?
What if your government decides that anything LGBT is taboo for kids[1]? Or that informations about say, ongoing genocides, is deemed too graphic for kids. Won't that also increase the blast radius to people who didn't bother justifying their age, even though they supposedly also have the right to vote?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Edu...
Also parent in the UK - strong disagree, it’s part of our parental responsibilities to set this up, not doing it is the same as not watching a newly walking baby on the stairs (/etc). Compromising everyone’s privacy for a subset of lazy parents is a failing of society.
Relatively few newly walking babies have peers whose parents allow them to use stairs unattended making them feel socially excluded for not also using stairs unattended.
Ignoring the existence of peer pressure and calling parents lazy is a failing of individuals.
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.
A phone, no. An internet connected device is another question.
One can always get a dumbphone without this.
“But $parent, none of the other kids have it on! I’m missing out on everything! Are you trying to ruin my life? I hate you!”
Rinse and repeat until you break
I’m a parent and I think all of these arguments are ridiculous. You shouldn’t need the force of government across the nation to set boundaries for your own kids.
It’s also getting kind of silly to pretend that these laws are going to stop those other kids’ parents from simply age-verifying their phones for them. These fantasies where the government passes a law and suddenly every parent and child in the country settle into the exact same social norms are just that - fantasy.
Thanks for your comment. It's good to hear from people that want this, as to understand which voters politicians are relying on for support for passing this at a legal level.
However, I fundamentally and ideologically disagree with your views on the matter, and I think your views are incompatible with a free society with checks and balances, and frankly, draconian.
> 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.
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.
> you can buy a PASS age verification card at the local post office for 15£
If there's one thing the UK internet has taught me is that some brits will throw a fit for every minor inconvenience they face
"Dole appoint at 10am 30min from home!?" Means it's an unsurmountable challenge from them as they might be hangover from the previous day and what do you mean I have to pay the bus fare to get there?
Of course the privacy point stands. But their complaint is not about privacy, is about the effort
The real problem was never just checking age imo. It was deciding who deals with mistakes, who gets blamed when access is blocked wrongly, and how a normal user is supposed to fix it.
Moving that to the phone makes it look cleaner, but mostly just pushes the mess into a layer people have even less control over.
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'm all for a ban which is simply, "any parent who allows their child to access social media will be sent to the gulag".
Problem solved, and with minimal government meddling.
> 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.
>Pick a lane.
You are either with us or against us.
A ban explicitly requires government interference. That's what a ban is.
Why stop at age?
Not long till complete authentication of the human at every level is required to use a computer.
Why have Western countries introduced so many laws that look like China’s? The government controls more and more individuals
The west believes "Data is the new oil". The west can't compete with China or India in the amount of data their citizens can generate because they are the world's most populous country. China already has a huge head start because it has already been collecting and data-mining its citizen's data. Attempts to make stronger privacy laws and sovereign data laws in many western countries will also impede data collections. But state sharing of data - through 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes and 14 Eyes - along with BigTech data could give the west an edge. (The west already has partial access to indian data because it leaks through lax data privacy laws, ill-thought indian government policies and BigTech. But Chinese data is truly firewalled.)
So yes, you are right that we will see our democracies embrace more and more control over us citizens, limiting our rights, while our governments emulate China. This is unfortunately because the west believes that being a leader in technology is essential to retain its powers.
Because the internet became a shithole.
I miss the old internet of mailing lists and websites with blinking gifs and "webrings".
I really do.
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.
I can get you residency in a number of countries in about 30 to 60 days. It’s remarkably easy to change countries an American friend of mine has over 15 residencies leading to over 10 passports. No citizenship by investment non sense either.
I can only speak for the USA, but the first-past-the-post voting plus a very strong bias towards rural areas and former slave-owner states, results in a government that poorly represents any of its constituents.
I don't know if even right-wingers like this age verification crap, maybe they put up with it from Republicans so they can vote against abortion and I put up with it from Democrats so I can vote for abortion.
Of course, if you vote for a third party, you're spoilering your side. Every country is a group project run by underpaid people to try to please millions of uninformed haters. Still better than dying of dysentery, I guess.
Many of the red states are passing age verification laws to view porn sites. However 100% of the sites are either ignoring the laws if they are not in the US or easily accessible via a VPN.
Vote with your feet, with an American passport you can choose from a multitude of countries each offering the politics of your choice. You can even mix and match.
The only western country left is Paraguay, maybe Israel too.
“The west” is now the global north, it’s mostly 3rd world countries dying of old age and going bankrupt in the process.
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.
One silver lining this is finally going to push me to switch to a dedicated camera and some niche unrestricted Linux or graphene device as a phone. Goodbye iPhone. (I say this as someone with an Apple account old enough to auto “qualify”, how lucky).
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.
How would Apple possibly fight a valid law of any country it operates in?
To understand the age verification push, got to follow the incentives[0].
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfukJ6uVHXs
Fuck the bureaucrats responsible for this. I’m so sick of being completely powerless to fight any of this, being forced to sit and watch. Writing to my MP changes nothing. Signing petitions does nothing. The Government doesn’t give a fuck. They’ve had so many golden opportunities to differentiate themselves from the Tories and all they’ve done is carry the torch.
I will vote for any party that promises to rewind this crap, I don’t care what other policies they have. Enough of the nannying.
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.
Age requirements for managing an Apple Account in the UK
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/126788
The joys of locked bootloaders strike again.
You can blame the government as much as you like, but this is actually has to do with british nature, they have an obsessive need for control, and if you worked with some you will immediately notice how they will try to make all sort of policies and shit to control the other party, all while they pretend they are open about hearing other’s opinions. So it kinda backfired, what goes around comes around.
Funny; as a Brit I'd say the above is a classic hallmark of American companies.
Brits are masters of malicious compliance.
Apple isn't doing shit except for following the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
I will edit this to say, since I'm sure people are out there who will make this point: yes, I read the article. I disagree with it. "Not required by the OS" Well that isn't going to matter much when Apple gets hit with a big fat fine for "allowing" underage users on social media.
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?
Welcome to HN, you must be new here. Many readers will correctly identify that "don't worry, the only other competitor will surely not follow suit" is a poor argument, and will recognize that an ad hominem against a privacy advocacy organization won't go far on a hacker forum.
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.
And I would rather have the _choice_ whether to prove my age to Apple or not. I think if it were optional, with the additional option of "share my age with websites & apps", nobody would have an issue with it.
It is optional, you can skip past it. Presumably you will lose access to some websites and apps though.
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?