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

171–180 of 227 posts

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

#171

Post by mceachen »

tzs wrote: post #164
t1234s wrote: post #51

I guess going forward if you are under 18 and want to learn programming and not be harassed by the government you have to go back to having and offline only computer and stack of o'reilly books?

How would this hinder a kid learning programming? How would it even be noticeable?

12 year old me would have sold their skateboard AND their bike to have a magic Patiently Explain Anything And Everything To Me robot instead of the mostly-impenetrable-to-my-tween-brain software engineering books I had access to in my town.

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

#172

Post by gzread »

iamnothere wrote: post #160
gzread wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Show me where the California age attestation law, or any other law you don't like has

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

#173

Post by GoblinSlayer »

shadowgovt wrote: post #131
iamnothere wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re arguing against freedom of computing, itself an extension of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. These laws are an attempt to regulate not just what you do with your computer, but how it operates . This is fundamentally an attack on rights and freedoms, and if it goes unchallenged then it will expand into other areas. Maybe that doesn’t move you; it seems like you don’t care much for personal liberties.…

You have made some fascinating assumptions about the person you are addressing. I recommend refraining from that in the future and instead asking why a fellow American takes a position other than the one you hold. Two guys built a website to try and help people curb their undesired sexual proclivities and because they were bad at security, their users' personal information (including their own logs of their sexual pr…

What they really fear is general purpose computers that can run free software (free as in not enslaved) without approved backdoors and vetted gatekeepers. Cyberpunk dystopia is coming and is enabled by smartphone cartel: phoneposters don't care what's going on.

Their reason: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/government-mand...

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

#174

Post by tzs »

forshaper wrote: post #92
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…

It seems to me that this is a parental responsibility. Understandably, we have shifted increasing amounts of those on to the state. However, there are fireplaces, stoves, drills, and other power tools at home. Is the state responsible for children getting into those?

> It seems to me that this is a parental responsibility.

That's the point of the California law and similar laws in other states. It requires operating systems to implement a simple mechanism that parents can use to specify an age range on a child's account, and to provide a way for apps that that need to know if they are being used by children to ask for that information.

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

#175

Post by Apocryphon »

hypeatei wrote: post #167
shadowgovt wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have made some fascinating assumptions about the person you are addressing. I recommend refraining from that in the future and instead asking why a fellow American takes a position other than the one you hold. Two guys built a website to try and help people curb their undesired sexual proclivities and because they were bad at security, their users' personal information (including their own logs of their sexual pr…

> But we should be a lot more serious about taking more than zero steps No, we shouldn't. There is no inherent need for government regulations in every part of our lives, let alone a computer. Sorry to be flippant, but this idea that everyone needs to have a "serious conversation" about something is laughable and inevitably leads to mountains of government legislation with unintended consequences. Thanks, but no than…

In America, we simply have private individuals sue each other in civil court for that rather than state prosecution in criminal court. Close enough.

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

#176

Post by hypeatei »

Apocryphon wrote: post #175
hypeatei wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we should be a lot more serious about taking more than zero steps No, we shouldn't. There is no inherent need for government regulations in every part of our lives, let alone a computer. Sorry to be flippant, but this idea that everyone needs to have a "serious conversation" about something is laughable and inevitably leads to mountains of government legislation with unintended consequences. Thanks, but no than…

In America, we simply have private individuals sue each other in civil court for that rather than state prosecution in criminal court. Close enough.

You still need legal standing for a civil case and the defendant isn't being threatened with jail time or men with guns. Yes, frivolous cases are a thing but it's both unlikely (because money) and not in the same league as criminal prosecution.

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

#178

Post by kevinh »

soulofmischief wrote: post #11
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.

Slippery slope is famously a fallacious argument. My first exposure to it was people insisting that legalizing gay marriage would end up legalizing marriage to animals.

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

#179

Post by jmholla »

kevinh wrote: post #178
soulofmischief wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Slippery slope is famously a fallacious argument. My first exposure to it was people insisting that legalizing gay marriage would end up legalizing marriage to animals.

A slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no demonstrated history of it existing. I think we're all aware that that is not the case for surveillance laws.

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

#180

Post by iamnothere »

gzread wrote: post #172
iamnothere wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Show me where the California age attestation law, or any other law you don't like has

(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.

(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

...

1798.501. (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following:

(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user:

&c.

So yes, OSes are mentioned directly. The lawsuits will only come after it goes into effect.

Post reply on HN