Even if they could enforce it which I highly doubt, this law is clearly a “Fuck you and your free software”.
Like if a “too young” user have the skills to update the OS to change or even remove the age verification, who will be responsible? Yeah I don’t know either, but both will be bad.
No biggie. I got ready for this in minutes after hearing about it.
#!/usr/bin/env fish read -P "Are you old enough? (yes/no) " input if test "$input" = "yes" -o "$input" = "Yes" echo "Proceeding..." else echo "You are not old enough. Exiting." exit 1 end… What? … Why are you all looking at me like that?
That would be a completely unworkable law since devices may not even have internet connectivity, or a user interface. And even if they did, it would have a chilling effect on software development in California.
This is a whole new level for system level fingerprinting
Is this only for Californians? Only Americans? Or everywhere?
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.
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.
No doubt in response to Europe making its choice for software open source. Expect targeted attacks on FOSS to increase
It’s just a simple DoB input, which can be local afaik
microslop and or palintir stink all over this, mroe than likely its the latter.
How the hell are they going to enforce this?
My birthday is 01.01.0001
Greetings Jesus!
01.01.1970
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s so next year when they expand the requirements the infrastructure is already in place.
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!
Sell data. profile people more accurately.
OK Newsom, you’ve lost me. I enjoyed your chaotic responses to the drumpf but you’ve officially lost me.
He’s not even making most of those responses to Trump. His social media manager is doing it. He’s still just another Howard Schultz. “I like the idea of equality as long as rich people don’t have to reduce the rate at which they become richer.”
Yikes
Realize, this has always been him. He is NOT a liberal. He is a conservative who calls himself a democrat.
Yup.
Welcome to newspeak, USA-flavor.
Still drinking hair of the dog to nurse the McCarthyian redscare hangover.
Layers deep into the newspeak. Liberal, conservative, democrat… all these terms already many contortions and inversions distanced from original meaning. Soon, even “him”, “he” and “himself” too. Then even “is” and “not”, and then the CIA’s work will be done.
That’s called a liberal.
Government-mandated age verification stuff on private hardware is basically the opposite of liberal though
Those who call themselves liberal have been doing shit like this for so long that this rank hypocrisy is part of what it means to be liberal.
If liberals don’t like it, they should have had some integrity instead of ridiculing the concept as a “purity test.”
I wouldn’t even say conservative, social fascist who hates poor and trans people.
Yeah, a liberal.
Look up the word neo-liberal. Cause that is what you mean. Continually replying “Yeah, a liberal.”, you sound like a moron.
Ahhh. Neo-liberal.
Gotta love that Orwellian marketing.
Neo-liberal. Neither new (neo), nor liberal.
Basically, same old fascist.
California! Uber Alles!
Yup, a liberal.
Are people finally ignoring his paid PR xitter team? It was annoying when my family bought into that trick. Newsom was always a POS.
He used to be married to the woman that also used to be Trump Jr.’s fiancé.
He is still overwhelmingly liberal and progressive. Calling him conservative is insane.
If only all those agents hadn’t told us to not use the political compass, we might be less lost now. :3
He is basically as conservative as you can be here in California while holding a state wide elected position and even that may not be true anymore with how things have shifted since the last governor election. Point is he is generally on the more conservative end of Californian politics, hell I know some Schwarzenegger style conservatives who are more progressive than him.
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.
I hate Newsom but this seems like a non-issue.
If it was a non-issue they wouldn’t introduce this to begin with.
There’s not a single good reason to why an OS would ever need to know someone’s age.
Yep.
Plenty bad reasons though.
Mostly around abuse of the vulnerable, data-mining, advertising/marketing/psyops/publicrelations, pedophilia, pedovoria, disempowerment, indoctrination, dumbing-down, wealth extraction maximisation, profiling, voter suppression, gerrymandering, insurance scams, etc.
Still struggling to conceive of even a single good reason…
… So it helps us detect the crooked politicians who would vote for such a thing?
One of the proposed ideas in a Discord-based thread was to use OS-level age authentication to prevent you from having to provide IDs to a thousand other parties. One place, one time. So that’s one reason for an OS to need it, in a world hellbent on increasing age restrictions. I don’t know enough about that idea to argue it, though I’m certain it could be spoofed in 0.2 seconds after release.
It sounded like the EU solution is a dedicated, non-identifying birth date tag in their passports.
But what do I know. I assume all age restrictions can be circumvented, so I see no point in all this theater. And it’s theater because it never really seems to truly be about protecting children. At least, to me, I’d be more concerned about SFW manosphere bullshit than NSFW porn when it comes to protecting kids (yes, I’m well aware a great deal of porn is misogynistic, degrading, abusive, etc)
Man, it’s so weird to think about misogynistic/degrading/abusive porn existing. I’m used to furry porn which, generally, is much more positive “yay let’s do [insert rule 34 of literally anything you could possibly think of] and have a great time!” type stuff.
– Frost
War is good for business?
Wait til you hear about the room numbers!
But you can just lie lol
That’s what I always did as a kid. Maybe some good reasons not to do that, but that’s still the reality of it.
It doesn’t matter. There’s no good reason to have it in an OS in the first place. It’s obviously a stepping stone to get infrastructure in place so they can expand it later.
Let’s put it this way. Linux says no. We’re not gonna do that at a kernel level. Because there’s no way in hell that’s going through as long as Linus is alive.
Then what? Is California going to ban Linux? Guess what all the data centers use for servers…
I almost want them to do it, just to grab popcorn and enjoy the fallout.
it established a bad precedent
Thin end of the wedge. Authoritarianism and fascism comes little by little.
It’s a muddy slope. Watch your step.
A bad precedent. No concession! Fuck these nihlists! We have freedom of speech, and the supreme court and congress and the executive does not have the authority to take it from us. Fuck them.
So far…
