Comment by fc417fc802
4 days ago
The question itself (ie if the user is under 13) doesn't matter. Already for the current legislation there's nothing stopping the device owner from intentionally lying about the age. So really this entire exercise is about providing a standardized means of control over filtering, thus my observation that the proposed measure is both backwards and overly limited in scope.
The software on the device can do whatever it would like with the signal it receives, including consulting the user account metadata for declared age if the device owner so desires.
Having the app ask the OS for the age range is more flexible.
If the app tells the OS the age range it is appropriate for the filtering will only be able to either block or allow the app to run.
If the systems tells the app the age range of the user the app can operate in a mode appropriate for that age range. For example a multiplayer game app can put kids in games that only have other kids playing.
I think it being limited is a feature. This was modeled after the California law, and I think the intent is the same although the changes made after the initial draft make it less clear. The California law is clearly aimed at being a parental control on the child's device, with minimal privacy implications. Hence relying entirely on the age information provided by the parent.