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

151–160 of 227 posts

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

#151

Post by slopinthebag »

gzread wrote: post #121
slopinthebag wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How does the step make sense? Has any linux user ever requested this "feature"? Does it provide some sort of benefit to the user?

> The slippery slope argument says that open source software is a stepping stone to a world where all commercial activity is banned.

No it doesn't.

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

#152

Post by alpaca128 »

wat10000 wrote: post #61
rmast wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or they could all just agree to not cut prices so everyone profits more than with a race to the bottom. Not the first nor last time for this to happen.

Undercutting the competition pays off when they're much smaller and you can eliminate them that way and subsequently raise prices.

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

#153

Post by orwin »

alephnerd wrote: post #52
iamnothere wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be better to create a parallel economy of underground unrestricted distributions while encouraging everyone to openly flaunt the law, and simultaneously fighting via lawfare and media. But maybe that’s just me!

> encouraging everyone to openly flaunt the law > But maybe that’s just me If you are fine taking the legal liability and are open to civil and criminal prosecution, go right ahead. Western jurisdictions tend to cooperate on extradition as well, and American free speech laws are significantly more expansive than those in the EU, Canada, or ANZ so taking a principled approach wouldn't be a viable defense if you decide…

This is not the first time I read comments from you, I just want to tell you you're probably one of the most annoyingly, reasonably correct person I read. And take it as a compliment, because each time I disagree with you I have to look at my position because I fear being on the wrong side of the argument (which is probably what I find annoying. I want to be unreasonable sometimes!).

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

#154

Post by GoblinSlayer »

shadowgovt wrote: post #68
iamnothere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are the outsized consequences? They are trying to regulate voodoo.

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

#155

Post by gzread »

iamnothere wrote: post #142
gzread wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Feel free to cite an extant American law that explicitly defines how an OS should behave. You won’t find one. Again, this is unprecedented.

The ADA?

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

#157

Post by gzread »

slopinthebag wrote: post #151
gzread wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How does the step make sense? Has any linux user ever requested this "feature"? Does it provide some sort of benefit to the user? > The slippery slope argument says that open source software is a stepping stone to a world where all commercial activity is banned. No it doesn't.

Yes, it's very useful to parents who want to restrict their children's computer use. Some of those parents use Linux.

Yes, it does.

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

#158

Post by marssaxman »

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…

One thing will lead to another; if we let them have this now, they'll demand verification next - "closing the loophole", some ambitious politician will claim.

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

#159

Post by soulofmischief »

gzread wrote: post #121
slopinthebag wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"makes sense" does a lot of heavy lifting. Explain the justification for this restriction on 1A rights and mandatory compulsion of speech for anyone writing software.

And your provided "slippery slope argument" is just a straw man argument. No one in this thread made that argument. The slippery slope is the authoritarian ratchet.

If you want to restrict your kid's access to the internet, install software that does that. I think in 2026, when kids have personal devices, key word "personal", meaning there is an expected level of privacy we should respect, effective insulation against the bad parts of the internet will not be achieved through software. Meanwhile, this legislation will be used to prevent children from turning into organized free thinkers.

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

#160

Post by iamnothere »

gzread wrote: post #155
iamnothere wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to cite an extant American law that explicitly defines how an OS should behave. You won’t find one. Again, this is unprecedented.

The ADA?

Where does it explicitly mention operating systems?

Ok, so you’ll say that it just applies to operating systems even though it’s not explicitly mentioned. Show me where the ADA has been used successfully in a lawsuit against an OS developer for the construction of their OS. I’ll wait!

Post reply on HN