Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

ilga.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 473 posts

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#171

Post by sneak »

strongpigeon wrote: post #28

People here seem very against this, but I don't really see it. This only require to have a form asking about your age and provide an API to read it, right? Surely I'm missing something? Is the backlash due to fear of a slippery slope?

This is the framework for requiring government ID to use online services, which increasingly power even local computing (thanks to DRM and cloud services).

They want to abolish anonymous use of internet services, because anonymous publishing at scale is powerful and dangerous to incumbents when they can’t retaliate with malicious prosecution, police harassment, or assassination.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#172

Post by quincepie »

strongpigeon wrote: post #28

People here seem very against this, but I don't really see it. This only require to have a form asking about your age and provide an API to read it, right? Surely I'm missing something? Is the backlash due to fear of a slippery slope?

to me, it's both the slippery slope argument and the lack of real reason other than "protecting minors". operating systems were designed to run the program/programs. You can make applications use this API to determine the user age, or you can just...ask the user in the application itself. I also don't see why this is a requirement rather than an option the same way I don't see why having a Microsoft account is required to install windows or access to internet (without the current workarounds) or even those password reset questions and to some extent asking for first and last name. If I want to add those information, let me do that myself or when i use said software, don't make it a hard requirement.

The bill itself sort of goes against its "purpose". If the purpose is to make a convenient API for stores to know their user, and avoid showing them certain content then why did the bill state: "If an operator has internal clear and convincing information that a user's age is different than the age indicated by a signal received in accordance with this Section, the operator shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user's age."

because many people lie in those forms. Many people on steam will select they were born in 1900, including myself. So how will this API help? the only way for it to be useful is if they later require full verification.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#173

Post by somethoughts »

bink wrote: post #103
inkysigma wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except none of these bills (California or the one in question) as currently written require an ID to actually be verified, merely that the user provide an age. This seems intentional as it's seems to solve the user journey where a parent is able to set a reasonable default by simply setting up an associated account age at account creation. It's effectively just standardizing parental controls. I think this is a reaso…

Kids aren't stupid. They'll just create another account when they're old enough to figure it out. They'll tell their friends how to do it and the rest of us will be stuck with these stupid prompts forever like it's a cookie banner.

From a parent's perspective, that's the great part about bubbling it up to the OS user account level.

Its trivially easy to see if the user (child) has indeed created multiple OS level user accounts with different permission levels if you want to spot check the computer.

You'll see it on first startup and then you can have "a chat". With Guest account access disabled, spawning a new account on a computer takes 2-3 minutes, will send emails and dashboard notices to the parent.

Its very much near impossible to verify that the child is not just going to Facebook etc. and using separate accounts and just logging out religiously.

That said I wish Apple/Microsoft/Google had more aggressively advertised their Parental Control features for Mac/Windows/ChromeOS as a key differentiator to avoid Ubuntu/Open Source distros from having to implement them.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#174

Post by nemomarx »

bink wrote: post #103
inkysigma wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except none of these bills (California or the one in question) as currently written require an ID to actually be verified, merely that the user provide an age. This seems intentional as it's seems to solve the user journey where a parent is able to set a reasonable default by simply setting up an associated account age at account creation. It's effectively just standardizing parental controls. I think this is a reaso…

Kids aren't stupid. They'll just create another account when they're old enough to figure it out. They'll tell their friends how to do it and the rest of us will be stuck with these stupid prompts forever like it's a cookie banner.

I don't think "real" age verification with ids is immune to this either. (kids paying an adult to get an id for it or fooling an ai classifier, whatever).

Basically unsolveable, so why worry about that edge case? Kids will always get through to some adult content somewhere. A token system will make parents feel better in the meantime.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#175

Post by saltyoldman »

Slow_Hand wrote: post #7

If I’m not mistaken, Meta has been lobbying heavily for all of these age-verification bills lately. It seems their strategy is to externalize their responsibility to verify age themselves, and thus reduce their exposure to liabilities when child protection acts like COPPA are violated.

That's the correct strategy, if anyone sues meta, meta can bring their age verifier into the lawsuit and blame them. It makes sense from a business perspective, insurance perspective. etc...

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#176

Post by tt24 »

anthk wrote: post #133
hypeatei wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I don't want my computer asking for my age and providing an API to give up that information? Why is the government mandating software devs to add bloat and privacy violating features to operating systems? The slippery slope isn't a fallacy in this case as we've seen the pot slowly come to a boil after 9/11 with various laws like the Patriot Act, FISA, etc. and classified programs within the NSA (and I'm sure…

Meanwhile Epstein and the pedo elite are untouchable and with no surveillance of course.

[flagged]

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#177

Post by TehCorwiz »

JCattheATM wrote: post #64
glitchc wrote: post #53

The law as is written mainly targets social media platforms. For an OS to comply, all it needs to do is provide a field during account creation that records the user's date of birth as supplied by the user. There is no onus on the operator to confirm the veracity of this information, or even record it anywhere other than the local OS install itself. I think we're safe.

It's the start of a very slippery slope.

https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/government-surveillance-...

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#179

Post by enoint »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #35
spullara wrote: post #2

this is completely insane. we need some kind of constitutional amendment to get rid of all this kind legislation forever.

it's entirely possible such nonsense is all show, and wouldn't be passed, however. i'm from illinois, worked in california, and no longer live in either. from afar, it seems that whatever california bureaucrats propose, after a short delay, gets proposed by their little sibling bureaucrats in illinois.

It has already passed the Colorado senate.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#180

Post by mghackerlady »

anonym29 wrote: post #94
gruez wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except for during covid, where there was a weird reversal.

I don't even know if that was much of a "reversal". Blue states were paternalistic over both your property (business and social gathering shutdowns) and your body (masking, social distancing enforcement), while red states (particularly Texas, Florida) were very laissez-faire for both. What's perplexing about this is that research has generally correlated higher amygdala activity (fear/worry) with political conservati…

In that case, I imagine that the response of mask mandates wasn't out of fear but was done do to the obvious benefit in controlling a disaster. The anti-masking movement is also I suspect a fear response. People are afraid of change, especially extremely visible change
Post reply on HN