all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I'm not sure if that law will pass/has passed, but I wonder how it affects embed systems, vending machines, etc, since all of them have OS in them. For Linux this can already be implemented by using groups for age so they can claim the OS already offers this and be done, then it's up to the apps to query it and most apps wouldn't need to so that's that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Does each VM need to be verified, or the hypervisor? What about docker? Does memtest need to ask for age verification?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yup, it's very clear there wasn't a single person who understands about OSs in any of the proceedings for this law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago*

    Language is something you can teach, but it isn’t really something that’s easily controlled. The term “OS” already means something like ‘a space that lets you interact with and manage apps and services on a personal computing device’ for most people. This is the case because of how its used with Apple, Google, Windows, Steam, Meta, etc…

    So the literal operating systems of other kinds of equipment, such as a vending machine, might eventually end up with its own moniker if the distinction becomes important enough to matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just do what MidnightBDS did. MidnightBSD has decided to change its license to prohibit use in California. There, problem sorted. Anyone in California wanting MBDS can simply use a vpn. BTW, MBDS is one of those happy kind of discoveries (serendipity?) I’ve just made. Check them out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago

    This right here. It's not about "protecting children." It never HAS been about "protecting children." It never WILL be about "protecting children." It's about surveillance and control. The money class is desperate for ways to identify you online that can get around your use of a VPN. They want to know who you are, where you are, where you go, who you talk to, what you buy and what your politics are. And if you think they'll be satisfied with just an age check for porn sites, you are hopelessly naive.

    Fortunately, when someone or something "damages" the Internet, like these sorts of laws, the Internet routes around that damage. If a website won't accept my connection because of an age check, I'm just going to move on the something else. These idiot lawmakers act like we don't have a choice. I say they're wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just think about the children™ bro. We are doing everything to save the children™ bro. Trust me bro.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just add a "Not To Be Used In California" note.

    If - yep, a VERY big If - that happened it would at least trigger a larger discussion. At the moment, no-one in the general public knows about this erosion of privacy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I didn't realize it at first, but Pornhub has also been requesting device based age verification legislation.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    The California law essentially allows a parent to create a child account on a device and gives a way for apps to query it.

    I'm not sure what PH is asking for, but it doesn't sound like the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Each app needs to check age? So like every one of the hundred windows processes need to do this?

  • source
  • [+] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Good thing that isn't what was passed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    The bill does describe what a covered app store is. Here is a link in case anyone wants to read it.

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Yup, that is what it says.

    This will all depend on what the courts (assuming this even gets there) decide an application is.

    Maybe we should move more towards package managers only providing libraries and utilities. And not full-blown applications. Then rely on Flatpak and appimages (or snaps :-1:) for actual apps. It would be better for security anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

    Linux will not care, if some corporate distros sell out, no matter. Just spin up any other million distros which are not [redacted]. Or just gentoo it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Literally no reason to use a slur.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Perhaps strong words, but i absolutely despise this pointless topic. i am not in US jurisdiction (not that it would make any difference if i was), i don't want their nonsense and i believe very strongly against it. we have enough of our own nonsense from politicians who understand nothing to deal with.

    Anyway i edited it now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Every app does not need to check your birth date. An app will be able to query if the user is within one of a few broad ranges of age (e.g. under 18), but an app only has to do that if it needs to comply with some other legislation.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Who exactly gains anything from forcing lets say Krita to implement an age check?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    The comment you answered to said not all software has to implement age checks; only those who actually deal with age relevant content. You said it would be a foot in the door. So... who's foot to do what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    How would the current approach help?

    Its not invasive yet (no third party, no ID, no verification; its basically just another user controlled date field that is not even exposed). So it is not lowering any barrier in that regard.

    It's also not a helpful intermediary step for harder measures, because as soon as you want a third party to do attestation, storing that on a user controlled device is just unnecessary complexity and risk of circumvention. It would be easier and safer (for those introducing it) to just let the attesting party talk to the providers directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Isn't that level already socially normalized? Every second website asks me for my birthday to derive my age for as long as I can think. Many of them ask me basically every time I use them (even Steam, where I am logged in and my payment history alone should imply that I am old enough).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    The US bills I have read also don't enforce any real age (how could they). They require the birthday to be stored on the device for the device to reply with the info if the user is within a certain age bracket. But nowhere did I see anything that would force users to store their truthful birthday. All that it would do is making the already existing age checks much more convenient and giving parents the opportunity to make them slightly more secure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    From an acceptance point of view there is no difference in forcing providers to implement an API to talk to your device or forcing providers to talk to a central service (or at least any service implementing a certain interface).

    If the goal was for more surveillance, they could have immediately gone for that route.

    They could also have kept the current "ask the user" approach and mandated website providers to store these information. That would have been a much smaller step and would have brought them closer to big brother as well.

    Now they went for an approach that takes a step away from what we already have, making it more privacy friendly. Websites don't have to ask (and potentially store) your birthday anymore and can still stay compliant.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    No, it's not.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    In my country, Brazil, on March 17 the age verification will be law on every OS… so technically Linux will be “illegal” too :(

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Protecc the children protecc the children protect the ped...

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    LOL. no. it fucking is not.

  • source
  • 35 comments in c/linux@programming.dev view that post
    22 comments in c/peertube@lemmy.world view that post
    11 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post