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

121–130 of 227 posts

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

#121

Post by gzread »

slopinthebag wrote: post #76
wat10000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "arguments like this one"? It isn't an argument at all, it's just pointing out some actual facts. If your slippery slope argument can't withstand a simple statement that something is at the top of the slope, it's not much good.

Authoritarianism rarely happens overnight, it happens one step at a time and at every step the useful idiots [0] exclaim "It's just one step! What's the big deal? Stop overreacting!". Next thing you know you've walked 100 miles and it's too late to turn back. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

This is not being supported because the size of the step is small, but because the step itself makes sense.

The slippery slope argument says that open source software is a stepping stone to a world where all commercial activity is banned. Should we therefore oppose open source software?

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

#122

Post by gzread »

shadowgovt wrote: post #74
matheusmoreira wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soon programming will itself require a license. Only government approved individuals will be able to write code. CPUs will only boot software signed by the government.

"Software engineering" is one of the few large practices with 'engineering' in its name that has no mechanism for license granting and revocation for violation of professional standard. That's not what is happening here, but we might see that happen in our lifetimes. Hopefully before someone writes the software that kills enough people to necessitate licensing, not after (since generally, such outcomes are how licens…

You only need the license to work professionally, of course. You don't need a bridge building license to build with Lego.

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

#124

Post by gzread »

BobbyJo wrote: post #105

This is all just unenforceable theater. Are they going to jail or fine open source developers if they create an OS that doesn't support the requirements? Are they going to do customs checks for OSs? Firewalls? These kinds of laws just seem like unworkable messes to fool the tech ignorant into thinking they care about kids. Application side I get, there is an entity there running the application, that can be fined or…

The Illinois one treats it the same as a product with a known manufacturing defect.

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

quesera wrote: post #44
linksnapzz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's no problem w/ improper voting, then why would anyone object to measures intended to verify that the proprieties involved are being followed?

Because 10% of US citizens (legitimate voters) do not have the forms of ID required in these proposed laws, and it can be expensive and time-consuming to get those forms of ID which are not otherwise required for their lives (QED), and they might not do so strictly for voting. Some people think disenfranchisement is bad. Others see it as useful. Specifically, PartyB thinks those people with inadequate ID skew toward…

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by gzread »

randusername wrote: post #31

Many parents will not be proactive in protecting their children online and I think this is a legitimate societal problem. The idea of algorithmic feeds for adult content that descend into increasingly "engaging" depictions is something I find horrifying. I do not want my kids to experience those "loss of innocence" moments too soon by letting their curiosity lead them into things they are not equipped to confront yet…

The CA/CO/IL law where the root user just sets the age of the child's user seems pretty sensible.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #27
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…

So once my application is running I can just keep querying an age bracket until it flips and then I've successfully determined a date of birth.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by gzread »

zb3 wrote: post #85
k33n wrote: post #58

Totally inaccurate. The actual technical requirement is to add a self-reported age field to user creation flows, and that the value selected be made available to applications. But let's just pretend something totally different is happening. It's more exciting that way.

So TempleOS is still illegal? And well, the law represents an intent.. if self-reporting won't work (obviously won't), then the scenario where PCs end up as locked down as smartphones is not far fetched.

Just as open source software represents the intent that all for-profit activities shall be illegal...

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

#129

Post by gzread »

quesera wrote: post #91
m132 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the regulation of fiat/crypto exchanges, but the verification extends to centralized exchanges that merely facilitate exchanges one kind of purely virtual currency for another, neither of which have to be recognized as legal tender.

I didn't know those existed, and so I kind of see your point. The counterpoint is that if your job was to prevent/punish financial crimes that affect consumers, would it make sense to ignore these exchanges? Heck, if M:TG cards were the medium, and they could be moved across international borders with a few keystrokes, then surely those would be watched too. I won't argue that it's not privacy-invading for legitimate…

If my job was to promote open source software it would make sense to ban proprietary software. That doesn't mean I should actually be allowed to do that.

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

#130

Post by gzread »

iamnothere wrote: post #17
dd8601fn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How has HN gotten to this point where citing the actual text of a proposed law is downvoted while wild speculation is not?

There are already laws about OSes, that they shouldn't spy on you and so on.

Post reply on HN