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

61–70 of 227 posts

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

#61

Post by wat10000 »

rmast wrote: post #53
EGreg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alco…

The sobriety check requirement for cars is so optimistic: “Once data prove the tech cuts drunk-driving crashes, insurers may trim rates.” Why would any insurance company want to cut into their profits by reducing rates?

Because it's a competitive market and offering a lower price than your competitors helps you earn more business. If your competitors lower their prices and you don't lower yours then you'll lose business.

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

#62

Post by jeroenhd »

iamnothere wrote: post #20
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 en…

Work on a standardised solution has already been done and proposals are already being discussed. Things aren't moving as fast as they could be because every time something like this hits a front page somewhere a bunch of people have to come in and comment that they dislike the law, but the people behind open source projects don't seem to be bothered by the time they need to put into this. Their employer is probably just paying them to do so anyway.

Linux desktops already have APIs for profile management. This is just another field to add to those APIs.

Very few core Linux desktop development is coming from hobbyists compared to the massive corporations maintaining Linux as a real option. Companies like Red Hat and System76 isn't going to drop California as a customer base to make a statement that no politician will ever listen to.

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

#63

Post by shadowgovt »

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…

> liqour stores and porno shops, for example, who already seem to do an acceptable job of checking ID without destroying people's privacy

The difference being, of course, that as an adult one can simply refrain from frequenting a liquor store or porno shop if one chooses not to.

It's not practical to refrain from using a computer while participating fully in modern society. The UN has indicated Internet access to be a human right.

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

#64

Post by slashdev »

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…

The register is a satirical publication.

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

#65

Post by parineum »

browningstreet wrote: post #45
wongarsu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transm…

Gavin said he's open to amending the law. I hope someone's taking him up on that..

Gavin doesn't make laws and should have vetoed this one.

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

#66

Post by phendrenad2 »

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…

And where is the information about a person's age stored? On their ID. They're just checking ID on the honor system (for now!)

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

#67

Post by vscode-rest »

parineum wrote: post #65
browningstreet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gavin said he's open to amending the law. I hope someone's taking him up on that..

Gavin doesn't make laws and should have vetoed this one.

Laws get made by whomever takes Gavin to the most dinners at the French Laundry. Don’t like this law? Good luck - reservations are booked out 6 months in advance.

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

#68

Post by shadowgovt »

iamnothere wrote: post #20
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 en…

To be fair, "it's just a fucking hobby" no longer being an excuse has been a long time coming, much in the same way that driving cars or flying airplanes started as just a hobby but became no longer one when practicing it had outsized consequences to non-practitioners.

Signed, someone who notes frequently that the default apache configs probably put a web developer in violation of the GDPR (since if you just left on collecting IP addresses for no reason, you are de-facto not collecting them for "network security.")

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

#69

Post by NegativeK »

alephnerd wrote: post #36
iamnothere wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux is the kernel, it has nothing to do with this. The law apparently seems to target the packager/distributor of the distribution. Many small distros are hobby distros! > The US is a federal system. It's part of our checks and balances. Nonsensical answer. Different states are passing different requirements that often contradict each other. This is going to be a nightmare. > No one. This is why organizations with…

> Many small distros are hobby distros... Then region lock. You don't have to support California or NY or ... > Different states are passing different requirements that often contradict each other. This is going to be a nightmare Create regional feature flags or region lock. It's a solved problem. > So you’re saying that we should expect those laws too They already de facto exist contractually speaking. > Because bef…

>> hobby

> You don't have to support

This isn't just a kernel thing. Expecting volunteers to dump time into compliance is ridiculous. Not because they oppose the idea, but because huge swaths of the internet run on people doing something for free -- and they'll just do something else if governments begin threatening them.

Europe realized this with their new infosec liability regulations. If you're giving your labor away, you're not liable for your software; if you're making money off your software, step up and do better. Maybe California and the others should learn more from the EU.

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

#70

Post by bee_rider »

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?

Also, like, what about IOT devices. Are lightbulbs and thermostats going to need to attest the age of their users? There are so many computers without a useful concept of a user identity.

I honestly think the California law is well intentioned (in the sense that it just asks the OS to attest the age of the user, so, lawmakers probably thought this could be done in a privacy-preserving and minimally annoying fashion), but it seems very focused on desktop and cellphone use-cases.

Post reply on HN