Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 768 posts

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#571

Post by somat »

What a ridiculous law, smells of some sort of frog boiling scheme to me.

step1: "lets see if we can get away with imposing a small easy requirement, you know 'think of the children'"

step2: "now that we have a foot in the door, lets see if we can get some real tracking in place, for the children of course"

Anyhow: as far as I can tell compliance on linux would be as simple as

    echo $YEAR_BORN > ~/.config/ca_ab_1043
It's an accessible interface(it is the same user interface many linux programs use), applications can use a well known api to access the data.(using the common unix filesystem interface) and it only presents the minimum needed information to the application.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#572

Post by iwontberude »

BuddyPickett wrote: post #436
piloto_ciego wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real solution is that nobody should have power.

No, everybody should have power.

You are saying the same thing, I’m cracking up over here.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#573

Post by rm30 »

Governments that require age verification for operating systems to protect children also drop bombs on civilian neighborhoods, fight wars that orphan millions and tolerate child labor, exploitation, poverty.

History teaches us governments are the best at protecting children.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#576

Post by heavyset_go »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #250
alistairSH wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve Zero basis in fact. We’re in the wealthiest nation on the planet. Most of us live better than any previous generation. To claim all that success is completely in spite of government is ridiculous.

Are you under the impression that the government created all that wealth?

The government literally enforces capitalism with guns and bombs lol

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#577

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

nomel wrote: post #447
safety1st wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first reaction is that this is an insanely bad law: * The signal has to be made available to both apps and websites * So if you dutifully input valid ages for your computer users, now any groomer with a website or an app can find out who's a kid and who isn't. You just put a target on your kid's back. * A fair share of parents will realize this, and in order to protect their children, will willfully noncomply. So…

I'm not sure what the solution is, but to steel man a bit, the alternative is kids have access to all the adult spaces, where they will be groomed. A website/app serving grooming content to a kid is just so incredibly unlikely compared to a kid being groomed as the result of having unrestricted access. Since I do not see a solution, and you see identifying children as a risk, what do you see as a solution for kids be…

As the problem is adults trying to groom kids, the answer is robust detection and enforcement of the current anti-grooming laws.

It's ironic that people supposedly care about this when there's also a child rapist/murderer being kept safe as President without being held accountable for his crimes.

I suppose this law could be used as a defense against getting caught grooming minors - "I thought they were adult as surely a kid wouldn't be able to access that chat group"

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#578

Post by heavyset_go »

idle_zealot wrote: post #190
fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

What I'm reading of this law is that it requires OS developers to require users select their age (really their age bracket) when making a user account, and an interface for applications/websites to read that user-provided field. I.e. not age verification, but just a standard way to identify if a user is on a child account. If that understanding is correct, how is this bad at all ? It's a way to put to rest people's c…

It's not enough to just accept the age signal:

> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

Developers are still liable if they have reason to believe someone is underage, even if the age signal says otherwise.

The only way to truly minimize that liability is forcing users to scan their faces and IDs, that is why age verification systems are already implemented that way.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#580

Post by lazide »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #410
lazide wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing no one ever breaks any rules!

If a platform decides to require an account to post, or requires your message to pass an LLM sniff test before publishing it, you can break all the rules you want but your message won't be visible to others on said platform.

The example given was a ‘lightweight LLM’ by the poster, which sounded an awful lot like client side?

If server side, you already have the heavyweight stuff going on, and yes there is no need to do all the bypassable shenanigans.

Post reply on HN