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

Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 227 posts

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#11

Post by soulofmischief »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

Have you heard of the slippery slope? A cornerstone of American political philosophy?

Arguments like this one are why the authoritarian ratchet continues to turn unimpeded over time.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#12

Post by m132 »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

From the article:

> These laws can, and almost certainly will, get worse. New York's proposed Senate Bill S8102A explicitly forbids self-reporting. The state Attorney General will decide how to enforce it. For example, to use Linux, you might need to submit a driver's license.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#13

Post by EGreg »

nszceta wrote: post #8
NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

There is no limit to the power grab. The only acceptable thing to do is to dig the trenches before it gets worse.

The trenches will eventually be overwhelmed regardless. Once the government has AI and sensors, it will mandate its ubiquitous use.

For minors, we have this lovely law coming in NYC: that will broadcast to everyone that you’re a minor: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8102

But let’s talk about around the US. For example, all cars manufactured in 2029 and onward will be required to have a built-in alcohol detector / breathalyzer and to shut down and not let you drive if they detect your blood alcohol level is too high: https://www.clear2drive.com/the-pass-act-explained/

And in 2027 — next year — new cars are required to watch where you are looking, how much you’re blinking or nodding and alert authorities if you aren’t alert enough: https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becom...

And it’s not just the US government. That phone in your hand? Governments have mandated tha all vendors preinstall spy software, filters and apps on it, that are not removable: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/government-mand...

Also these phones no longer shut down when you shut them down. They continue operating and sending telemetry so the government can eventually know where they are at all times. https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/228682/why-do-ce...

This is in addition to the interlinked CCTV cameras that are the norm in various cities (eg in the UK), new Flock cameras in US, etc. But the government doesnt even need Flock or Ring to cooperate. They have plenty of their own housing programs to install thousands of cameras to spy on citizens 24/7, and can now deploy AI to sift through it all. Here in NYC we already have the lovely Domain Awareness System: https://nysfocus.com/2025/08/11/eric-adams-nycha-nypd-camera...

To sum up: the government can know what you’re doing at all times, with sensors in your car, mandated apps on your phone, cameras on your street, and soon, mandated telemetry sent by your operating system. Caretakers of kids are required to report anything to authorities and not let parents know, in case the department of child services might need to know. Every child is required to be vaccinated too, with lots of different vaccines.

I wouldn’t be surprised if toilet plumbing in every apartment in the future will be required to install a test for what you’re eating or drinking, to catch diseases early and for public health.

Looks like this short film is a documentary about our future, except with AI doing the snitching instead of humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#15

Post by mothballed »

m132 wrote: post #9

> The real problem is this hodgepodge of laws; it's the growth of the surveillance state. From voting rights in the United States, facing Trump's Orwellian-named SAVE America Act, to Ring's doggie tracking system that can also be used to follow people, to Trump booting Anthropic to the side for refusing to allow its AI tools to be used for mass surveillance, privacy is on the decline. I understand it is popular to pi…

I don't think it's unique to America either. It's just the ebb and flow of the envelope of possibilities for central governance as technology and culture changes. FATF has managed to implement KYC worldwide, even in banana republics at least for the peasant without connections.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#16

Post by wongarsu »

alphabetag675 wrote: post #10
NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

When we are installing docker repositories on my Rockylinux installation on 100 nodes at once, should we need to manually put an age of the person who is running the script somewhere in the process? Will docker be forced to prevent me from downloading its packages if I do not transmit the age in a header?

The California law only stipulates that there's an "accessible interface at account setup" to set the birthday or age at account setup, and an interface to query the age bracket. Plus the crap for "application stores"

I don't think it's a very well thought-out law. But realistically this will end up as setting some env variable for your docker containers to assure them that you are 99 years old. And yes, maybe transmitting a header to docker hub that you are 99 years old. Probably configured via an env variable for the docker cli to use. It's stupid, but nothing a couple env variables wouldn't comply with

The real issue is when the law inevitably gets expanded to get some real teeth, and all the easy workarounds stop being legal

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#17

Post by iamnothere »

dd8601fn wrote: post #7
forinti wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe the likes of MS lobbied for this because it suits them.

If it’s like the Illinois one, all of tech are probably behind them, because these shift age verification away from service providers to a self-reported age bracket at the OS level. It’s much safer than what some idiotic states are doing (like upload your photo id to services where it gets stolen). The idea is a parent or guardian is probably setting up a device. They make a user account for their kid and specify a u…

Keep repeating those talking points, we all know what this is really about. It’s bad enough as it is, and it’s the foot in the door for much worse.

Before now, nobody has ever tried to legislate how an OS should work. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#18

Post by quesera »

m132 wrote: post #9

> The real problem is this hodgepodge of laws; it's the growth of the surveillance state. From voting rights in the United States, facing Trump's Orwellian-named SAVE America Act, to Ring's doggie tracking system that can also be used to follow people, to Trump booting Anthropic to the side for refusing to allow its AI tools to be used for mass surveillance, privacy is on the decline. I understand it is popular to pi…

You're not wrong, but there is a huge difference between moving US government regulated currency to (possibly) foreign and (possibly) nefarious actors, and this.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#19

Post by LtWorf »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

It's funny that they want to do these checks in a country where even the checks for voting are very iffy.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#20

Post by iamnothere »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

Who is paying FOSS devs who will be implementing this? Who is providing them with legal indemnification since they are now apparently subject to fines for a fucking hobby if they do it wrong? Who is making CA the only jurisdiction instead of the myriad contradictory laws all over the place? Who is stepping in to make sure no additional legislation comes across regulating how FOSS has to include backdoors or weaken encryption?
Post reply on HN