Live data from Hacker News

Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

agelesslinux.org

271–280 of 671 posts

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#271

The California law is actually the best form of age verification one can imagine. It only requires the OS to let the user to 'signal' their age. In other words, it's more like a checkbox asking if you're older than 18, instead of scanning your face or driving license. It doesn't require a cloud account either. Storing the ages the user inputted in /etc/ages besides /etc/passed and providing an API to read it is compl…

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right. Give legislative busybodies the ability to force this little flag into the OS because it's no big deal, and next year they'll say "hey, make sure you only report 18+ if secure boot is enabled" and 5 years later it'll be "hey, you can only report 18+ if one of our Identity Partners has confirmed it." It's the principle of the matter. The State should not be allowed to co…

You see a slippery slope and I see a reasonable compromise. It's a wildly popular opinion that we should control which age groups can use social media[0][1][2]. Do you think these polls are astroturfed? If not, it's clear people want some sort of age verification, and I think California's way is the least intrusive.

And I know someone is going to say 'then we should regulate social media sites to force them to verify the users' ages...' no god please no. Normalizing cloud-based age verification is far, far worse than AB 1043. If there is a principle to be set that should be: cloud should trust local, not vice versa.

[0]: https://yougov.com/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-socia...

[1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/widespread-support-banning-socia...

[2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gen-z-social...

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same reaction as you this entire time until half an hour ago when I saw the second link in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47382650 Meta being behind all of these efforts makes it incredibly suspicious, especially given the New York law is ridiculously more invasive than the California one. It sure makes it seem like there's likely a larger plan here that this is merely facilitating. So I…

The larger plan is probably to avoid banning social media for under-18s

Or get another source of demographic data and suppress smaller competitors who can't comply with onerous regulation.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not OS age verification. You put in an age. It does not check whether it's real. It does not ask for an ID. That will get provided to app stores and probably browsers. It should be possible to spoof, too. The primary use case of this, in my mind, is so that a parent can give their kid a PC and set an age on the user account, and that will result in them being unable to access a variety of content. Same thing for…

> It's not even meaningfully de-anonymizing! Until I poll the API every day until the bucket changes and now I know your exact birthdate. This law is not well-baked.

That's only going to apply to children, since there's only one age group for adults. There are definitely ways to solve that, too. It's not perfect, but I much prefer it to laws that force websites to ask for ID, or laws that do the same thing by making websites liable for children accessing them.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#274
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And LATAM probably soon to follow, specially Argentina with Milei and now Chile with their new right wing president

There's 2 axes on the political spectrum. Economic and Social axes. Liberal and Conservative is one dimension (Economic) and Authoritarian and Libertarian is another dimension (Social). In the US both the Democratic Party (Liberal) and Republican Party (Conservatives) are considered Authoritarian on this 2 dimensional graph. Milei claims to be a Conservative Libertarian so, in theory, he should be opposed to this. We…

[deleted]

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#275
post #14

Something remarkable and unsettling is how the age verification debate has popped up almost simultaneously in the US, UK, and EU. With the same logical fallacies. Pretty telling about how transnational lobbies and their interests work. Controlling what children do online is a solved problem: Parenting and parental control applications.

Seen today on fedi— vx-underground • @vxunderground “Yeah, so basically the current prevailing sch[*]zo internet theory is that Al nerds have destroyed the internet and created infinite spam. The advertisement goons are now incapable of determining who is a bot and who is an actual human. The advertisement goons no longer want to pay as much to social media networks. Social media networks, in full blown panic of losi…

In this case I think the schizos may be right. It makes complete sense. And $2b is peanuts to Meta, on par with the amount they’d authorize their lobbying department to spend over the course of a few years. I’m not surprised at all.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#276
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked at the bill and it sure seems like it would apply to Linux. What's your case that it doesn't?

As I understood it, the claim was that it wouldn't apply because of the Constitution, not because the text of the bill made it not apply to Linux.

In the sense that it compels speech, essentially? Hmm.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A) there's ways around that stuff that any child can figure out. No, there are not for hardware locked devices with the proper controls (what apps, websites, etc to allow). > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. > C) who decides on what channels are allowed? The school does. But teachers are…

> > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't. > The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them. Just to be clear - do you not understand that a parent might be parenting, but some times their children is in care of a school? Your focus on "a technical solution exists" is missing the real issue here, and it's not a technical one.

Same argument(s) can be applied to age verification.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't all yes/no questions. And what I'm saying is I think anyone who thinks there's some sort of paradox in answering these will be in for a rude awakening. E.g., "How do you fine someone per child affected?" Idk, maybe the parents that become aware of their children being affected would join a lawsuit, and others would not be parties to the suit?

so many people start asking random questions like these acting as if judges are drooling baboons or something “What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.

That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place?

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#279
The intent behind these laws is noble, but the implementation shows the deep-rooted corrupted nature of law making in these jurisdictions.

That said, the failure is shared evenly with the tech industry's refusal to work with governments to implement viable solutions.

Legislators favor their corporate benefactors, the tech industry favors its ideologies and freedom of developers and engineers. But who looks out for the regular individual? Who is making sure their interest is enforced first and foremost?

Consider these facts (and correct me if they're wrong):

1) it is possible to issue hardware to the public that verifies to computers and internet services alike the age of the bearer without disclosing anything else about the bearer.

2) Age verification laws for other things like drinking, smoking, and gambling all primarily require the seller to authenticate that the person has authentic identification, and their age is lawful for the activity.

3) The secure method of authenticating users requires MFA, a FIDO2 compliant device like a Yubikey is the most secure means of the 2nd factor of authentication. It requires knowing a secret, and physically touching the device.

Knowing all this, it is possible to issue the public devices that receive a challenge from a government operated server, require the user to tap on the device, and then enter a pin to respond with a signed version of the challenge, to verify they possess the device. The device could be sold or given to the public without any registration, the only thing required would be showing and verifying your valid ID at the point of sale (from a government office ideally).

This is just one solution, but the burden could be passed onto the government, and the tech industry to implement solutions that work with that.

If we had that, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would also not have a problem with requiring insertion of an age verification device to start installing Linux -- of course the installer wouldn't know it's in California, it would rely on the people installing it to tell them it is. And when selling devices in california, by default they could require inserting this device to proceed, but I see nothing preventing users from installing their own custom OS lawfully if they too the device elsewhere, and how can the device tell it is at "elsewhere", even if it has a GPS there is no law requiring GPS to be turned on for that purpose.

---

The key thing you should all consider is that this is the will of the people to the most part. Most people agree that access to tech should be age restricted, although to what degree is a different story. This isn't the 90s, using an OS is not a novel or special thing you do, it is similar to driving a car except we depend on these devices more than cars!! Things the public depends on, things a country depends on, will always require regulation of some sort.

Forget about what it was like for you in your nostalgic days of experimenting with Linux or whatever. These are not those days. this is happening. if you can stop age verification laws, please go ahead, you have my full support. But I don't see that happening. We will get shitty situations where third party companies bribing politicians collect our physical ID scans, and we'll be forced to not only disclose our identity to everyone and their mother on the internet, we'll be forced to let these 3rd parties and the government track every site we visit at this rate.

Corrupt lawmakers are one half of the problem, technologists refusing to adapt and make best of the situation and propose privacy preserving solutions is the other half. I'm glad so many are willing to go all-or-nothing and die on their hills, but there is no reason they have to drag everyone else with them.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right. Give legislative busybodies the ability to force this little flag into the OS because it's no big deal, and next year they'll say "hey, make sure you only report 18+ if secure boot is enabled" and 5 years later it'll be "hey, you can only report 18+ if one of our Identity Partners has confirmed it." It's the principle of the matter. The State should not be allowed to co…

You see a slippery slope and I see a reasonable compromise. It's a wildly popular opinion that we should control which age groups can use social media[0][1][2]. Do you think these polls are astroturfed? If not, it's clear people want some sort of age verification, and I think California's way is the least intrusive. And I know someone is going to say 'then we should regulate social media sites to force them to verify…

People, generally, have no grasp of what they really want or what downstream effects of what they think they want look like. They don't know what it would take to effect that ban. In fact, I would speculate that if the same group were asked "should you, personally, have to scan your ID to visit Facebook," you'd see a meaningful shift in responses. (yes, I know that's not the way this particular CA proposal would be implemented, the point is that people are fickle and polls are not a good guide for lawmaking)

I also don't base my principles on the desires of the masses. It's our duty as people who understand the technology to prevent the controversy-de-jour from wagging our dog.

I share your feeling that if everyone did it this way and the world promised to stop making bad, privacy-invading ID laws I could grin and bear it. I don't see that happening, thus I am hostile to it in any flavor.

Post reply on HN