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

341–350 of 473 posts

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#341

Post by somethoughts »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #286
somethoughts wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

> 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. On what OS? Microslop Windows? On my computer no one is notified when an account is created. And the account list isn't visible when I log in. I log in to the TTY. Now, granted, I am not the norm. But my OS fa…

Yes it doesn't show up probably because you were able to pretty easily mindlessly click through the part where you were asked if this is being provisioned as a child's computer.

When you provision a Windows, Mac or Chromebook these days as a child's device using your parental account, it will require a parental account to enable new user accounts and/or re-enable guest user on the device.

Like I said - my preference would have been for Microsoft, Apple, Google and Meta and TikTok to have made an industry effort to educate parents about the existence of such tools a priori of any legislation, we could have avoided Linux etc. getting sucked in.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#342

Post by charcircuit »

enoint wrote: post #233
charcircuit wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that software can be installed from outside of the app store on pretty much every OS. Also if you have multiple app stores it would be convenient if they could all get it from the same place.

I'm skeptical we should ban all operating systems which permit this without an interactive age check. Shouldn't the free market acolytes be arguing that parents can choose between competitors which offer ever-improving parental controls?

I agree with you, but it seems like the free market is moving too slowly in regards to this pain point for parents which is resulting in demand for them to force change through the legal system.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#343

Post by newdee »

eecc wrote: post #129
mgfist wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be externalized to a degree. Facebook shouldn't be the ones verifying age, but there should be a trusted 3rd party service that does that, which just tells facebook "yes this user is old enough to use your service" or "no they're not old enough". It abso-fucking-lutely should not be at the OS level though, for so many reasons. Even the implementation alone would be a nightmare. Do I need to input my ID to u…

I guess the point is: delegate to kernel, then “oh, people with root can bypass with modules? Secure Boot!”

And then only trusted devices with an “acceptable” posture and valid manufacturer attestation can participate! Hellscape.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#344

Post by 2postsperday »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #72
1970-01-01 wrote: post #32

The "one weird trick" that all government hates? Stop forcing OSes to function with accounts. "User account" is an artifact of UNIX. You don't need an account to start a car, send and email, nor boot an operating system. I know it's hard to grasp, but it's true.

> You don't need an account to start a car, … Don’t say this too loud please, I don’t honestly think we’re too far from this reality, at least from an “Overton Window” point of view.

[flagged]

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#345

Post by fn-mote »

pembrook wrote: post #183
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.

Meta is definitely helping to push this, but they aren't having to push very hard because its already in the zeitgeist. It's a classic moral panic. Millennials are raising kids and turning into their boomer parents. Millennials had their hippie era in their 20s (same stuff their parents did rebranded as "hipster" instead of "hippie," where instead of building a lifestyle of free love and bong hits in the Haight-Ashbu…

> teens are depressed because they're seeing what parties they didn't get invited to

More modern version: my experiences don’t look like the Instagram shots, my body doesn’t look like theirs, etc.

> modern research on social media finds little to no affect on teen mental health

Sounds like you know what you’re talking about, but if you have references I would read them.

How about research on the effects of social media on academic performance?

No disagreement at all that this is another power and surveillance grab.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#346

Post by marcus_holmes »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #303
fn-mote wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Option B is […] simpler than the status quo. This bill FORBIDS platforms from operating in the state unless they provide age verification. Forbid an OS for operating in Illinois? Sounds insane to me. When I bring my Linux laptop from California, what happens?

I'm not really focused on the exact wording of this bill. But mandating distros have a useradd and glibc with an extra couple functions is not a significant burden.

So... a pinky swear then, right?

I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator?

I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service.

I don't see how this helps anyone else.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#347

Post by kristopolous »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #251
pianoben wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out, _maybe our computers shouldn't spy on us in the first place_?

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

Every system intended to protect children ends up patronizing everyone as a child.

Protect people's rights and don't get tricked in to giving them up just cause someone has a story about a child.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#348

Post by somethoughts »

autoexec wrote: post #243
somethoughts wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

It's pointless. Kids who want an uncensored internet will use a VPN or proxy the same way they've been getting around the restrictions and filers put on the computers and networks at schools. These laws will do nothing to protect children but will instead enable them to be targeted.

I don't think its quite so easy anymore that I can tell, with parental tools today - on a properly provisioned device you can require parental permission for app installs such as VPN, etc.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#349

Post by fn-mote »

bigbuppo wrote: post #193
firtoz wrote: post #46

It's kinda convenient because every service needs to ask you for the age now because they can't serve under 13s in a lot of cases. Having it be a simple API would be a decent convenience, no? If you connect it with a permission system where you can choose whether to provide this information (e.g. >13 as a bool or age as an integer or the birthday as a date) that can't be too bad I guess? I haven't read the whole thin…

We got rid of the IDENT protocol a long time ago because it was stupid.

You mean because it was being used as a doxxing tool.

Argumentation 101: “it’s stupid” isn’t a reason.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#350

Post by Dylan16807 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #346
Dylan16807 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really focused on the exact wording of this bill. But mandating distros have a useradd and glibc with an extra couple functions is not a significant burden.

So... a pinky swear then, right? I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator? I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service. I don't see how this helps anyone else.

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

Post reply on HN