its impossible to enforce. ca suck
Simple solution. From now on Linux distros should ship with a big message “NOT FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA”.
You want to force age verification? No server in all of California will run. Period.
Ah, the Glock solution.
Enlighten me pls
Glock is a type of gun.
A Glock, on its own, is not illegal.
Lots of aftermarket Glock accessories exist, all of which are legal.
However, certain combinations of Glock and accessories are not.
That’s not Glocks problem.
“My name is Microsoft, and I approved this message.”
Microsoft’s own servers run Linux. An in-house build IIRC named Azure Linux.
And there’s nothing keeping them from adding it themselves for their own in-house use & profit.
What does that have to do with anything?
If the only server OS legally capable of running in CA is Microsoft’s - be it Windows, or their particular spin of Linux - guess who’s gonna sop up all that government contract money?
And why would this particular law exempt Azure Linux only and specifically?
Wow, I’ve really got to spell it out for you, huh? Azure Linux will not be exempt - Microsoft will add the required routines to it, and if they are the only ones to do so, then they soak up the server market in CA.
ETA: I doubt that will wind up being the case as other commercial vendors will not want to be left behind, but we were discussing the theoretics.
Because these scumbag companies are essentially running business like mafia thugs. Every OS is just linux with DRM if you dig deep enough.
“We’re every datacenter in Canada e Mexico and we collectively and politely agreed it’s a good move as well.”
Yeah… It says just that in the article. You did read the article, right? I mean you didn’t just read the title and then rush in here to make a comment?
How people farm internet points is serious business
Where, pray tell? Out of curiosity I went there to check it out, and the “article” is just 3 paragraphs that just barely expand on the title. Maybe uBlock is triggering some invisible paywall there for me?
Keep scrolling there is more, mine has a odd empty ad break too
I did scroll down all the way to the comments section, and nothing.
Disabled uBlock, and sure enough, more of the article showed up.
Holy shit you can click those?
Whose age do they want on the server? The admins? Whoever staged it? Lol. Sure. Jan 1 1970.
Do I need to put my birthdate onto my firewalls?
Ooh are all enterprise firewalls going to start coming with CISA filters pre-enabled? Gotta protect those kids!
Supposedly the age verification thing that’s needed is the equivalent to a porn site verification. Just enter a birthday that’s in the 1800s, and you’re set. This is still a bad direction to go towards though, as it’ll set precedent for future bullshit.
Exactly. Today you can enter Jan 1 1800 and it will take it. That’s not the problem.
The real problem is the precedence it sets. An asinine rule gets passed and companies adhere to it, meaning they are enforcers.
Tomorrow when laws require real verification, like ID scan then they’ve already agreed to be the gate keeper for said asinine laws. It’s harder to back out at that point.
It’s all surveillance and it should be stopped.
There is nothing that’s “needed”. Its an OS not some demonic construct. It should also be noted that teens will be impacted in it as well - all minors. All this age gating, discriminatory behaviour is eating us alive. Age verification should not exist at all.
So now when I spin up a VM at my sysadmin job I have to tell the server I’m an adult? Does anyone actually know what the fuck we are doing here? What an absolute clown show.
This is what happens when boomers never die and stay in office for a lifetime. They don’t understand technology but are allowed to make the laws that govern their use.
Nha boomers are not the cause for this shit. Smart ass marketeers and tech bro pushing for more precise target identification and thus more reach for them are to blame. And those I stumble upon are definitely on the younger side.
When can just change the laws when they leave
Wut?
They don’t understand technology
Considering most said technology was built by boomers… yeah sure, buddy.
You’re confusing GenX with Boomers - the explosion in Tech was in the 90s, not the 70s.
Even then, most GenX weren’t involved in Tech since when they learned how to use it, it wasn’t yet normalized and widespread, so only really people who found such things interesting went for it and generally the personality type of those attracted to power over others is almost the opposite of the personality type of those attracted to solving problem which are expressed in strict and complex logical structures (for example programming languages or electronics designs).
You’re confusing GenX with Boomers - the explosion in Tech was in the 90s, not the 70s.
Indeed it “exploded” in the 90s but was established in the 60s.
Personality types seem to be spot on.
Regardless, shoehorning whole generations is just… unproductive. Unless you’re claming GenXers are cool, then you’re correct.deleted by creator
Does anyone actually know what the fuck we are doing here?
Obviously not, no.
You’re a sysadmin… you should know this.
You’re the person who has to actually think through the results of other people’s decisions.
That’s your job, lol.
Other people get paid to make decisions, not think about them.
Other people get paid to make decisions, not think about them.
And ofc they don’t suffer any consequences for making bad decisions.
Precisely, shit trickles downward, that’s how the economy/society works!
EDIT: Swear to god I didn’t even read your username before saying that.
So, goddamnit poopsmith, you as well should know this!
That’s your job lol!
Haha, I’m not even supposed to talk!
How will this affect embedded os like freertos or vxworks? There are lightbulbs that have operating systems these days, am I going to have to show ID to turn on my light?
My guess would be these OS’s just wont do it and stop doing business in that state.
Lucky for you, you can just download them anyway.
My guess is also that these lawmakers dont care nor considered other OS’s than Windows, MacOS, iOS and Android.
As those are not general purpose computing devices, and additionally have no app store - no, and no.
From the law text:
© “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
cool, then neither is my desktop pc. i get all my software on 5 1/4" floppies.
The quote is that it can download an application though
it can’t.
try to disprove me.
I forgot to include nm and wpa supplicant to my arch install before I committed it to disk and am now stuck installing everything from offline pacman caches carried to my via local homeless people in the form of random USB sticks found in parking lots. Prove me wrong.
The law defines a public webpage as a covered app store. Anything that can run doom and view a webpage is potentially covered.
It’s way overbroad and unclear how it could be implemented, and likely to be challenged in court if it even gets that far.
Definitely broad and “just trust us bro” energy.
I’m looking for orgs fighting the Colorado one. I got “replaced” by AI recently, so I have all the time in the world to write letters, make calls, and go to town halls. I just don’t want to do it alone.
It all but makes the law useless, but the law characterizes viable age verification as being self reported, so the Id wouldn’t be necessary.
uhhh. So would I need to get everyone who uses the household pc to verify age? Whats stopping a child from using the family pc that was age verified by an adult?
Believe it or not, straight to jail
Underage 👇🏼, Overage 👆🏼… Jail.
Birthday? Believe it or not, jail.
Clearly the point is not tl verify the age. They want your data.
They explicitly don’t:
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who authored the bill, said this “avoids constitutional concerns by focusing strictly on age assurance, not content moderation,” in a press release. The bill passed both chambers unanimously, 76-0 in the Assembly and 38-0 in the Senate.">
I mean, the point is not to protect the children, they are looking for ways to control data. The more barriers the better
Please drink your age verification can…
Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”
Then why the fuck did you sign it if it wasn’t ready and needed amendments? Is this what you’re going to do as president too?
Rhetorical, of course. Note how he doesn’t say he disagrees with the bill, just that it needed to consider family devices.
If this is who wins the primary, we are done. We’re basically already done, for sure, but him winning the primary would be the final nail in the coffin.
You know, bankroll the bribe money, settle the details out later. Politics 101
Yup. This. I’m in California and this is not even a topic. This is not even in the local news. It’s as quiet as: the bullet train project, the gigantic water pipeline for the south project, the drought solution, the power grid solutions, etc. But, boy, the amounts of money that it blew thru.
because he is a conservative dumbfucking cunt.
judge: the jury finds the defendant guilty of 9 counts of child negligence, and will serve 5 months in prison with a fine of $10,000 in damages.
prisoner: what you here for? what did you do?
father: I allowed my child to create his own account on Debian Trixie 13.3 with KDE Plasma interface.
prisoner: chuckles
Our president is fucking children, and you’re telling me I gotta verify my date of birth to run Linux, in the name of “Protecting the Children”?
Get the fuck outta here.
Wow California leading the way to fascism, who woulda thunk?
Colorado Dems pushing a similar law rn.
Fucking idiots.
Do you know if any organizations are coming out against it? I’ve been looking for a place to plug in. These people aren’t my representatives, but I know people in their districts and I’m curious why now? Who asked them to do this? Why did they think during the unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state was an appropriate time to propose something like this. There are only two sponsors. I looked through other legislation they cosponsored and some of it was good, some of it was garbage, but this was among the worst. I’ll try calling their numbers and send an email.
This kinda seems like a roundabout way of avoiding government /corporate age verification laws? Like it doesn’t require ID verification or biometrics and runs a local api to verify age.
Can someone smarter than me please explain if this is a good thing or not?
I’m not saying I’m smarter than you but to me it looks like “Hey yeah we require age verification. So, anyway…”
A token easily bypassed “verification” law to set and forget. It’s basically the same level of security corrently keeping teenage boys off of PornHub.
It’s not really easily bypassed though, if only the administrator can set the date of birth for an account. if the parent does not use the admin account for daily usage (and they shouldn’t for other reasons), then the majority of the children won’t be able to change it
I meant that the law is easily bypassed, for example by not implementing what you described. Good point nonetheless.
Because it’s not that crazy or authoritarian and is basically what most websites already do to “verify” you age (which is to say nothing but asking you your age). But the onus is now being put on OS makers, with an additional clause to build an API for other developers to access so they also can “know” a user’s age.
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age
It’s more than that. Go read the bill, particularly section 1798.501.b, 1798.502.a and b. Every developer of every application that can be downloaded from every package system MUST request your age bracket every time it is downloaded. And possibly every time it is launched. Basic utilities like ‘ls’ and ‘cat’, that pong example I pushed as a test, everything.
The photo ID requirements are what will come next.
Maybe. But it will be funny for a little bit when the data starts showing the average age of a Californian is over 200 years.
They’ll tag all the Linux users with “1 January 1970”
I am ready to believe those that allowed this law to pass were.
It always ALWAYS comes step by step!
First they will introduce age “non-real-check”, then they will enforce the check: you have accepted the principle, so what’s the big deal if we actually check it?
How do you catch a wild pig? (i dont remember the source)
- Day one: leave some rotten apples on the ground.
- Day two: Lay some fencing on one side and leave some rotton apples out.
- Day three, four and five: add more fencing everyday, but just leave it lying on the ground, keep leaving out apples.
- Day six, seven, and eight: leave out apples and stand up the fences one side per day until only the gate is left.
- Day 9: Install the gate, when the pig walks in, slam it shut.
- Day 10: Eat schnitzel and/or bacon
We are the pig and they’re already standing up the fences!!!
California leading the way? Have you been under a rock? It even says this in the article…
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods
Get people used to a mild form of age verification. Next step, full ID upload.
Final step: Drink verification cans before you can boot your
PC.
It’s been that way for a very long time.
Why not parents responsible for their own goddamn kids? Stop interfering with the rest of our privacy for this bullshit. Parental controls have existed for decades. Fucking use them.
Because this isn’t about parenting or children, it’s about a creeping surveillance state
The new California republic seems to be the only people who see this coming
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
When I got deployed to Vegas I thought there would be more gambling involved.
… That is literally what this law does.
When a parent creates the account for their child they specify the age. If the parent decides to lie or circumvent the system and it affects their child then they would be fined.
Just to be clear the law itself says absolutely nothing about actually verifying the age.
It also makes it mandatory to include this feature in every OS. It means you’ll be sending telemetry about who you are to anyone that wants it and you don’t have a choice. Fuck that. I don’t have kids, there’s no reason I should have to use an OS with this shit.
The law actually has a specific provision preventing both os providers and developers from sending your information to whoever they want.
And the OS is only allowed to send the minimum information that is required. Ie. your age bracket.
Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title.
Wake me when that actually leads to enforcement penalties. This law is vague enough as it is, no company is going to get slammed for “accidentally” skipping a user permission check, and having their FunPad app offer up your age info to one of Palantir’s long fingers.
Laws don’t prevent anything unless they are enforced. If the bill doesn’t also include how this will all be audited and incredibly harsh penalties for violating it that part might as well be toilet paper. I don’t care how minimal the data I’m sending them is. I want that amount to be 0. It doesn’t benefit me to give them anything so I shouldn’t be forced to do it.
Enforcement against Linux distributions, however, is likely to be problematic. Distros like Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo have no centralized account infrastructure, with users downloading ISOs from mirrors worldwide, and can modify source code freely. These small distros lack legal teams or resources to implement the required API, so a more realistic outcome for non-compliant distros is a disclaimer that the software is not intended for use in California.
That’s what MidnightBSD did.
California residents are not authorized to use MidnightBSD for desktop use in the state of California effective January 1, 2027. California law CA AB1043 requires a complex age verification system implemented for operating systems with no exceptions for small open source projects. At this time, we don’t have development time or a plan in place for this.
Fascinating.
They, eh, want for every local user account to be tied to some central database?
In general this is going out of hand, age verification is parents’ responsibility.
You guys are asking the wrong questions.
How is Linux going to do this? There’s no server for the os to send the information to report the age of its users, no way of forcing its user base to comply and no single person or entity to fine, arrest or otherwise force into compliance.
They made a law they cannot enforce.
For everyone trying to figure out how this would be enforced, it’s not about being proactively enforced. (and data collection is 99% of it)
It’s about adding a double-tap “Well, these people also violated our age verification law, so they have to pay a fine,” added to any incident where it’s convenient to add this in. If a minor sends another minor a snap that would trigger CP laws, and one of the phones isn’t age verified correctly, fine to the parents and hands up in the air “We tried!” A minor is involved in torrenting movies? “Look, kids using illegal OS! Fine to the parents!”
This is how laws work across a lot of corrupt developing countries. There’s laws for everything, but they only get applied selectively as authorities find they fit the situation. It’s hard to actually be 100% above board and do everything legally because of a few little things meant to be impossible to actually do bureaucratically. So in every situation, any set of authorities start in with the endemic leverage of “Well, we have suspicion of you selling ketamine out of your apartment. Did you do age verification on your laptop? No? Then we can seize that as a crime and see what’s on there. OR you can give up your supplier.”
Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”
then why did you fucking sign it in the first place??
words cannot describe the depths of my seething hatred for the complete, museum grade, massive piece of shit that is Gavin Newsom
Because it’s a metric, a bullet point, and campaign speech fodder. Newsome thinks of his position in terms of a career rather than an office, his job isn’t to lead a nation towards what’s right or wrong, it’s to pander so that he can be re-elected or elected to higher office.
The bullshit way that lobbying groups conduct polling and market research means they he’s chronically out of touch and that his focus is on perpetuating his time in office so he can continue to “represent the people”, making a calling out of bowing to the desires of the mis-informed, outraged, panicked mob he believes his electorate to be instead of actually having a spine and exercising good judgement.
The consequences of shoddy legislation take second place to being able to declare he did something to “keep kids safe”. It doesn’t even have to work, all that matters is having something to wave around and back up that claim. Something to placate the plebeians and let him continue to do what he does best… listen to lobbyists who are lying about what people think.
Why? Because that’s what gets people elected these days. Despite being on a foundation of pure bullshit, somehow it works. So he goes along with it, encourages it, and remains in office as a result.
deleted by creator
People already hate him this much, and he wants to run for president. Because Democrats didn’t lose badly enough last time.
Considering the massive number of servers running Linux used in the industry, this sounds like a good way to kill the Tech Industry in California.
This is a gift to Microsoft.
This law only applies to computers used by children. The law explicitly defines “users” as minors. It does not apply to machines used solely/primarily by adults. It does not apply to servers, or other machines with no local users. It won’t affect the tech industry directly.
This law effectively prohibits your children from (legally) using anything but Microsoft/Google products until they are 18.
With this law, Linux cannot be installed on a school computer. With a FOSS OS, the local systems administrator would be considered the OS provider, and would be liable under this idiot law.
Think about it this way: how do people learn enough about it to program for and admin Linux systems as adults?
Unless things changed a lot since my days (granted it was over 3 decades ago), the path to knowing all about using, administrating and programming software for running under Linux was through being able to play with it for fun as a teenager.
That said, thinking further about it, this might actually push more teenagers to try Linux out to avoid age-gating since they can just download a distro from anywhere in the World and install it in their own PC.
Yep. Back in the day all the MUD servers ran on Linux. I wanted to set up my own. I knew my cousin used it so I asked him about it.
He never answered my questions directly. But he did show me how to look up the answer to my question using man pages and/or search for info online.
That first install was so painful… My friend and I didn’t know how to set up the network and it turns out the tulip driver wasn’t installed by default. So we’d boot to Linux, try something to get the network working, write down the error message on a sheet of paper. Boot to windows to research the fix to the error message. Rinse and repeat until we finally got it working.
That process gave you more technical troubleshooting experience than 98% of my coworkers would ever try.
This law keeps Linux out of schools and businesses. Google and MS are “Operating System Providers” and would be the responsible parties under this law.
If a school sysadmin decides to adopt a Linux desktop for his school, that sysadmin becomes the “OS Provider”: they have full and complete control over the OS; they are fully responsible for everything that happens with it.
My point is that forcing age-gates on anything provided via such formal systems incentivizes kids to go around those systems and install themselves an OS that doesn’t do age-gating to evade it, not necessarily at school were they’re unlikely to control the hardware, but at home.
Even before this, MS and Google have used their money to create a situation were very few of the formal systems for kids to access computers, such as schools, put anything other than their OSes in front of kids, so only kids who are naturally geeks/techies might have tried Linux out on their own - those kids would always end up trying Linux out because they’re driven by curiosity and enjoyment from tinkering with Tech.
My point is for the other kids, the ones who wouldn’t try out on their computing devices any OS other than the mainstream stuff that they’ve been taught about at school: with this law California might very well just have created a strong incentive for those kids to go around those formal systems and try Linux out on hardware they control, which not all will but certainly more will that they would if there wasn’t a law in place to limit what they can do when using a mainstream OS - if there’s one thing that is common in all societies and historical times is that teenagers naturally rebel against outside control and try and find ways around it, so limiting what they can do in the officially endorsed systems will push them towards alternatives systems which won’t limit what they can do.
I think this might result in 3rd parties springing up as liability shields?
Sure, for a low price I’ll be your “OS Provider”
Yep, and good luck figuring out who the “os provider” even is at that point.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, (and ianal) but the language in the bill is incredibly loose. I would not be surprised if this thing gets poked full of holes, and I’m not even that creative.
System 76 have very controversially committed to supporting this in Pop OS, so there would be at least one Linux option.
oh fml seriously? system 76 what the hell!??!
With a FOSS OS, the local systems administrator would be considered the OS provider
Would they though? I only skimmed the bill text, but I think it might be hard to determine who is the “OS provider”, who is the “store” and who the “developers” are in the case of FOSS.
It doesn’t require a numerical age but rather an “age bracket” that the user provides during setup (<13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+) which must be “made available” to the “store” and the store must have a mechanism for picking up that “age signal” (lol).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, (and ianal) but the language seems incredibly loose. I would not be surprised if this thing gets poked full of holes and worked around (if it doesn’t end up being tied up in court first.)
It would be hilarious if distros could just provide age bracketed ISO downloads for the under 18 brackets and say that the download of an ISO is part of the setup.
There is not requirement in the bill to prevent users in specific age brackets from accessing certain content or applications.
It simply defines that a method for age attestation (not verification) must exist and that the age bracket data be made available to apps and appstores.
The people who decide what age brackets can access would be the appstores and the developers.
I will concede that using the word “controls” for the OS provider could be misunderstood. What I would assume is that they are meaning control as in the person/entity that provides updates for the system. Ie, MS, Apple, Linux Foundation, Canonical, etc.
Does it even allow for user privacy protection? Nothing I’ve read of the bill suggests that an app could ask whether the user is of a fuckable class by its Epstein-list owners, and allow the user to block the prompt. Every other app has to ask for permission to use the camera, to write to certain directories, they can even be firewalled to prevent network access. The very idea that an OS must code in a form of user information that must be provided to any app, trusted or not, is a warped, Palantir-driven approach to (in)security.
Sorry it is really hard to understand what you are arguing here.
If you don’t want your info (whether you are an adult a teen or a child) to be shared with “owners of apps that are on the Epstein list”, then don’t install those apps. There is nothing in this law requiring you to download any particular app.
If an app were sending this data to a third party, like palantir, then they would be in direct violation of this law.
If you were expecting to be able to leave decisions about your personal privacy and security to any governing body then you are in for a sore awakening. You should be well aware of how privacy and security are things that we have to take personal responsibility for.
If you don’t want your info (whether you are an adult a teen or a child) to be shared with “owners of apps that are on the Epstein list”, then don’t install those apps. There is nothing in this law requiring you to download any particular app.
Linux, as well as any decent system of security, operates via varying levels of trust. If I install a game on Steam, that does not get root access with permission to rewrite my kernel. Similarly, if I have banking info on my device, it doesn’t get to view that, or anything with my face or name. You can install and even run something without trusting it with your life.
If an app were sending this data to a third party, like palantir, then they would be in direct violation of this law.
We have seen time and time again that courts do not provide adequate protections for these types of data breaches. The law does not matter. At the most, software companies get slapped on the wrist, but more likely they get away with it, as “programming is hard, and it’s easier to just send everything”. It is far, far easier to assert that a malicious app is not submitting marketing, or “fuckability” information on your child if that device does not denote itself as a child’s device in the first place. That’s only possible if the law isn’t hammering the OS into openly exposing its own user data to anyone that asks for it.
Your last point about personal responsibility is an important one. It’s why, if you happen to be using an old insecure device running Windows XP, you can toy around on the web with it, but you should disconnect it from your personal network, and should not enter personal info on it. Any device software that is forced to keep an open “Would_President_47_Seek_To_Rape_This_User” flag, available to every application, is removing that option for personal responsibility.
Where did you get that?
The law’s broad definition of an “operating system provider” […] pulls in not just Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS, but Linux distributions and Valve’s SteamOS.
Doesn’t seem like Windows is somehow excluded.
they arent saying that windows is excluded, they are saying that windows will offer the option to enter age, linux wont and hence linux wont be an option for schools etc.
Even if Linux offers the option, school districts won’t use it. The district itself will be considered the “OS Provider” under this law, if they choose to use a FOSS OS. They have complete and total control over the OS. That makes them liable, rather than leaving that liability with Microsoft or Google.
This sort of regulation violates the first amendment right to speech, the first amendment right to free association, antitrust, and a whole shitload of really good law.
Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.
A windows sysadmin does not need to be granted the authority to alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification. Microsoft can restrict that access and maintain control over that aspect of the OS. As they will be held liable for allowing it to be disabled, they are not likely to do so.
Canonical cannot compel a similar restriction in its users and sysadmins, due to the FOSS-ness of the software. They cannot be held responsible for what that sysadmin does with their software. The sysadmin, then, becomes the OS Provider.
I honestly don’t even think the lawmakers thought this far, after reading the bill myself. I’m cautiously optimistic that this will end up in the courts, hopefully dying there.
Makes me wonder where the language came from, and who is looking to benefit. People in here are saying parents are, and there is a “parent’s rights” contingent - this is convenient red meat for them - but smells like just more anti-competitive bs, the newest attempt at regulatory capture from microslop.
Needless to say I’m disappointed to see this coming out of CA.
The text of the bill doesn’t mention anything about being able to “alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification”. You are adding a lot of interpretation that is not written, and would have to be decided by courts. The bill only says “person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” They don’t define “control” anywhere to mean having anything to do with code or development. It could just mean administering accounts. Yes, it is a poorly written hack-job of a bill, but nothing about it is specifically carving out special treatment for servers or closed source OS’s.
makes sense
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks.
What even is the point of this then? To make shitty parents feel better?
It’s so next year when they expand the requirements the infrastructure is already in place.
Sell data. profile people more accurately.
Moving towards removing anonymity on the internet.
IRL Community is dead in america, They know the only thing we have left to band together on against their Nazi regime is the internet. This is why they are trying to destroy anonymity.
Soon it will be “Linux is for criminals” (like they said with graphene).
Yup. Replacing cash with digital transactions and eliminating anonymity online.
Yep!! All their plan, laid out clear as day. But you’re the crazy person if you bring that up among normies!
The point of it is actually the exact opposite. With this law the parent would set the age of their child. And if they decide to lie and their child is affected then they could be fined.
The other thing it does is if a platform decides to ignore the age range of a user and it affects a child then they could be fined. But as long as they do best effort then it really only affects the parents.
It also prevent platforms from requesting additional ID verification unless they have confidence that the age bracket of that user is incorrect.
There is absolutely no reason for an OS to know a users age. At this point it is certain that they can escalate this into including gender or even race.
The children or even the teens have no meaning in this law - they are simply used as sugarcoating for the cyanide pill that’s aimed at the populace.
I agree until this law there was no reason for my os to know my age. This law creates that reason.
Any law can be bad if we take into account the imagined future possibilities. Should we outlaw electricity because it might be used in some way to make nukes?
If lawmakers try to issue further requirements for ID or facial scans then we can fight that. But until then there is nothing in this law that affects me outside of needing to enter a number less than 2005 when I setup my OS.
If you don’t have any kids then you literally can’t be fined under this law.
If your code is installed on a general purpose computing device that is provided to a child, you can be fined.
If you provide code to the general public without requesting an age signal from the receiver’s OS, you can be fined.
The attorney general of California might consider the JavaScript in your web page to be “content”. They might consider it to be an “application”. There is no clear distinction. If you request an age signal before providing content, you can be fined. If you fail to request an age signal before providing an application, you can be fined.
The more I read about this law, the less I think it will actually go into effect. It’s going to face a whole series of injunctions. The lawyers are going to bill thousands of hours, but the whole thing is going to be scrapped.
Should we outlaw electricity because it might be used in some way to make nukes?
No, because there are lots of good uses for electricity. What is the good use of this bill?
It prevents apps from asking for additional ID verification. I’d rather my os ask me for a number I am able to lie about than to have to send my ID to 30 different apps and data aggregators.
Many people say that we should put more responsibility on the parents for what their kids are allowed to do online. This law does that.
But it actually does require that. Read section 1798.502.b. Every developer of every application has to ask for your age bracket through this mechanism. The open source developers behind ‘ls’, ‘cp’, ‘rsync’ are all suddenly required to ask my age category of face a $2500-$7500 fine per time my kids run apt upgrade. That is utterly absurd.
Hell, I’m suddenly liable if a kid downloads my pong example project that I put up on crates.io or PyPI?!?
Yea they have to ask for your age bracket. That’s not the same as an ID.
I agree, the definition of an application is much too broad. And should be revised. But the difficulty is how do you restrict it without also creating a multitude of loopholes for businesses to exploit. At the very least we should restrict it to applications whose primary purpose is to interact with the internet.
And before you say it, yes I am aware that that still leaves many apps like curl, wget, ssh being covered. But it could be a start.
Or maybe just restrict it to social media applications. I am not a lawyer, I definitely don’t have a great grasp of how to create the type of language that is appropriate for laws.
The ONLY way this is even remotely OK is if the OS is set to 18+ all other age verification laws are satisfied and I don’t have to provide even more intrusive information to random companies.
