A prepaid card isn't a credit card. Payment processors can tell the difference between card types. You have to be 18 or older to get a credit card issued in your name (although you can add an underage authorized user to your card). And there are now other requirements needed if you're under 21 in the US, such as proof of income or a cosigner.
A prepaid card is also not a debit card (debit cards are attached to a bank account). To get a debit card you must be either 18 or have a legal guardian who is at least 18 on the account.
I don't about the US or Australia, but this is definitely not true everywhere.
I know for a fact that in some countries children as young as 13 can have bank accounts and debit cards that are not linked to a guardian.
Not necessarily. You can be issued a debit card from age 11 in the UK, although it will only do online transactions to prevent the account going overdrawn.
Allowing a parent/guardian control of the account is optional.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/cards-for-under-18...
But the discussion was around being able to use a credit card to verify that you're over the age of 18. My point being is that a credit card doesn't have a photo to verify that you are who the persons name is on the card.
Not saying that is the case here, but it pretty common for corporations to use government as their tool
> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
Here is the full quote.
> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.
> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.
> This added step is informed by
Why so passive? Why not "required by"?
> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Why not omit this apologia?
Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
> Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements
Generally, I prefer comments blatantly contradicting each other to at least be a little more spaced out than yours are.
Have a good day.
2) Google is a US corporation. If it is unhappy with US laws, it could be considered perhaps reasonable or even responsible for it to voice its concerns as a "corporate person" while it continues to fulfill its legal obligations. But it's a guest in Australia. If it doesn't want to obey the laws enacted by the people of Australia in Australia, it doesn't have to. After exhausting any judicial remedies, it can simply choose to leave Australia voluntarily. But to continue to reap Australian dollars while being demonstratively surly about it, could come across as disrespectful to the people of Australia. It would be as if someone came as a "plus one" to an exclusive party at your house, and then vocally complained the entire time that they were "forced" to remove their shoes.
I do have a passport that everyone is legally required to have in this country but trying to upload a picture of that was a fucking nightmare so I said fuck it take these numbers you clowns. Now if I can do this I'm sure every kid on the planet can just take their mom's CC so what is the point of this law anyway?
I'd say it's best to photoshop the info/photo, because "deleting" the photo doesn't mean they won't scrape it first.
"Google seems to have signed me up for Google Pay without asking" https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1504079288051589120
This was on hacker news.
That aside, I am not advocating for less choice, merely observing that in many cases users willingly give up their privacy (or other rights) for convenience. Your reaction to my observation actually proves my point.
This is false.
You don't need to give Apple a credit card to download apps. You do need an iTunes account, which can be created without a credit card (I have two with no cards attached).
If you only download free apps, you're good. You can fund the account with PayPal or gift cards if you choose to download paid apps.
Try to refrain from making stuff up in your defense of Google.
Also worth remembering that selling you stuff is not how google makes most of their money. The sell you as a product. The more people they have on their system the more money they make even if they are not buying anything.
I've had an android phone for many years without ever putting in a CC to the play store. I've bought apps though through Fdroid though.
I don't think Google is complaining too much. Especially if it gives them an excuse to collect credit card data (reducing a significant amount of friction when they sell YouTube premium / google drive subscriptions).