But the notion that a five-year-old is able to consent to anything is absurd. So we have to draw the line somewhere. The UK has chosen to draw the line at 18, which for some kids will be absurd, yes. But for others it will be appropriate. And yet others will still not be emotionally mature at 18 and capable of making that kind of decision properly.
Not just the UK. In about 30 of the United States of America the age of consent is 16 [1]. Beyond that marriage is permitted with a note from parents of the minor and approval from a judge up to 1 or 2 years below the AoC depending on the state.
It would be particularly absurd to think scummy companies wouldn’t track you if the requirement for consent wasn’t enshrined in law, and failure to comply with the law didn’t come with consequences.
But would you at that, this is a discussion started by a news article where one of the scummy companies is discovering what those consequences are. So something must be working.
That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions.
It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.
its more complex than that. There are many agreements you can make younger than that. Kids can, for example, buy services such as transport (e.g. the monthly bus tickets my daughter bought at 18) that are subject to legally binding agreements. They can buy things in general, on and offline. You can enter into employment contracts in general at 16, and for some limited exceptions even younger.
IMO, the law should establish some parental rights over their children, I don't think this is controversial. You can argue with what the limits of the rights are, how they interact with the rights of the child, and how that changes as the child ages, but the basic ideas is pretty sound.
And then given that, it is the role of an elected government to determine all these factors, subject to review of the courts. That all seems to be working here.
But the notion that a five-year-old is able to consent to anything is absurd. So we have to draw the line somewhere. The UK has chosen to draw the line at 18, which for some kids will be absurd, yes. But for others it will be appropriate. And yet others will still not be emotionally mature at 18 and capable of making that kind of decision properly.
UK's age of consent is 16. So yes, the idea that a 16 year old can consent to sex but not to cookies is indeed absurd.
Not just the UK. In about 30 of the United States of America the age of consent is 16 [1]. Beyond that marriage is permitted with a note from parents of the minor and approval from a judge up to 1 or 2 years below the AoC depending on the state.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_North_Americ...
No, what is absurd is everyone having their data tracked and sold, including minors.
And the notion that if you reject all tracking, these scummy companies will not actually track you
It would be particularly absurd to think scummy companies wouldn’t track you if the requirement for consent wasn’t enshrined in law, and failure to comply with the law didn’t come with consequences.
But would you at that, this is a discussion started by a news article where one of the scummy companies is discovering what those consequences are. So something must be working.
That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions.
It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.
The UK is considering making a special exception for underage youths. A pretty big one at that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c628ep4j5kno
As far as I can tell, here in Scotland it is 16?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/50
its more complex than that. There are many agreements you can make younger than that. Kids can, for example, buy services such as transport (e.g. the monthly bus tickets my daughter bought at 18) that are subject to legally binding agreements. They can buy things in general, on and offline. You can enter into employment contracts in general at 16, and for some limited exceptions even younger.
Why is it absurd?
IMO, the law should establish some parental rights over their children, I don't think this is controversial. You can argue with what the limits of the rights are, how they interact with the rights of the child, and how that changes as the child ages, but the basic ideas is pretty sound.
And then given that, it is the role of an elected government to determine all these factors, subject to review of the courts. That all seems to be working here.