Hope you all are excited for the most important parts of the internet to be completely unusable by default on Linux in a few years.
some_random
nobody is worried about about the arbitrarian aspects?
What if you are interested in developing your own OS (a task that would have been monumental but may become trivial with LLMs in the future)?
Why is the proper level the OS? Why not the browser or the hypervisor?
Or perhaps manufacturer should remember your age? What if hardware is resold? We would need a hardware cadastre! A global hardware cadastre would unite all jurisdictions in a power bloc eventually. It starts with daily computer/laptop, then domotics, then digital door locks, and before you know it the bloc-global hardware cadastre becomes authoritative, and the reference for property ownership.
Is there even a proper level?
DoctorOetker
this bill fixes nothing. if you wanted to prevent harm from the internet you would start with proper privacy laws. but we all know why that will never happen
rbbydotdev
So someone said something I think sarcastically that deserves a fresh comment.
"From now on all kids will become linux natives. The decade of the linux desktop is coming!"
I teach technology K-8. So I have a front row seat to observing how the next generation navigates this new digital wasteland. Due to the aggressive censorship and locked nature of their computing experience at school, think Go Guardian, they have become experts at using Google workspace to make art, comics, communicate with one another in class etc.
My point, the next generation really will become adept at using Linux IF the system is so locked down that it's all that's available. Humans adapt to their environment, no matter how harsh.
techteach00
I am in favor of age attestation at the OS level. Children accessing adult content is a serious problem, and "are you over 18" prompts are not a serious solution.
OTOH Id verification for every adult website is extremely invasive and lets random verifiers get all kinds of PIID. But the OS attestation exposed with a browser hook means a parent can say "this computer user is under 18" and every adult content provider can restrict their content without having to ever touch even a birthdate.
Thats not to say there isn't ambiguity in these laws but the principle is sound and the idea is better than alarmists have made it out to be.
If this becomes "every OS has to ID verify with the government", the slippery slope anti-attesters tout, then I'll join the protests, but as long as it's age attestation, I'm for it.
To me, this looks like a lot of pro privacy energy being totally wasted on something that is not actually invasive.
klm127
This is a victory only in a very perverse sense. The silver lining is that maybe this will push more people towards using Linux (maybe Haiku will have its day). And Linux itself lives on. But what a disaster of a policy, clearly just catering to lobbyists and not the best interests of Californians.
gwerbin
Aside from the fact that it is a stupid law, there should not be any sort of exemption.
I have not read the other proposed laws in this category but after reading the California law, I found it was so vague that my interpretation is that any operating system where the owner, well... actually owns the system is already in compliance. The law requires a mechanism where the OS can provide owner age data to applications. All operating systems where the owner is in control already provide a mechanism to supply data to apps, on most (mac, windows, unix, dos even) systems this is the file api, So to be in compliance with the law the owner can make a file that an application could access with the required info. No, there was nothing there about when an application needs this data, or even, like so many people assume, that it has to be out of the control of the owner.
The CA law was so vague and pointless, my only conclusion is that it is a sort of frog boiling scheme. Test the waters to see if they actually have jurisdiction.
comments (10)
cm2187
The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux. Android will still be allowed, GrapheneOS probably not.
red_admiral
E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
huimang
some_random
What if you are interested in developing your own OS (a task that would have been monumental but may become trivial with LLMs in the future)?
Why is the proper level the OS? Why not the browser or the hypervisor?
Or perhaps manufacturer should remember your age? What if hardware is resold? We would need a hardware cadastre! A global hardware cadastre would unite all jurisdictions in a power bloc eventually. It starts with daily computer/laptop, then domotics, then digital door locks, and before you know it the bloc-global hardware cadastre becomes authoritative, and the reference for property ownership.
Is there even a proper level?
DoctorOetker
rbbydotdev
"From now on all kids will become linux natives. The decade of the linux desktop is coming!"
I teach technology K-8. So I have a front row seat to observing how the next generation navigates this new digital wasteland. Due to the aggressive censorship and locked nature of their computing experience at school, think Go Guardian, they have become experts at using Google workspace to make art, comics, communicate with one another in class etc.
My point, the next generation really will become adept at using Linux IF the system is so locked down that it's all that's available. Humans adapt to their environment, no matter how harsh.
techteach00
OTOH Id verification for every adult website is extremely invasive and lets random verifiers get all kinds of PIID. But the OS attestation exposed with a browser hook means a parent can say "this computer user is under 18" and every adult content provider can restrict their content without having to ever touch even a birthdate.
Thats not to say there isn't ambiguity in these laws but the principle is sound and the idea is better than alarmists have made it out to be.
If this becomes "every OS has to ID verify with the government", the slippery slope anti-attesters tout, then I'll join the protests, but as long as it's age attestation, I'm for it.
To me, this looks like a lot of pro privacy energy being totally wasted on something that is not actually invasive.
klm127
gwerbin
I have not read the other proposed laws in this category but after reading the California law, I found it was so vague that my interpretation is that any operating system where the owner, well... actually owns the system is already in compliance. The law requires a mechanism where the OS can provide owner age data to applications. All operating systems where the owner is in control already provide a mechanism to supply data to apps, on most (mac, windows, unix, dos even) systems this is the file api, So to be in compliance with the law the owner can make a file that an application could access with the required info. No, there was nothing there about when an application needs this data, or even, like so many people assume, that it has to be out of the control of the owner.
The CA law was so vague and pointless, my only conclusion is that it is a sort of frog boiling scheme. Test the waters to see if they actually have jurisdiction.
somat