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

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 369 posts

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#101

Post by hackinthebochs »

Nasrudith wrote: post #61
hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

No, derangement is declaring "The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end." without fighting it at all and just mindlessly accepting it because you were told it was going to happen. It should be really easy to get your bank account information then. You're just going to give it to me, right? What is this? You're fighting me tooth and nail instead…

It's derangement to jump from an adult/not-adult bit to bank account information.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#102

Post by everdrive »

I've been trying to download media for a while now. I don't have a huge collection; most media is not actually very good. But, the internet soon will just be an awful conglomeration of cable TV / a big shitty mall / a horrible outrage & propaganda machine. It's already most of the way there. Either destroyed from within by bots, data brokers and corporations, or destroyed from without by government, surveillance, and regulation. I recommend you start treating the internet like a mall; it's not some place you'd actually like to go. You get in, get what you need, and get out. Some people will will disagree with the analogy on the grounds that they _like_ going to malls. Well, good news, the new internet might be for you.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#103

Post by AnthonyMouse »

RobotToaster wrote: post #48
bloppe wrote: post #40

> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.

This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?

> It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones.

That's not even the worst part:

> a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system

Suppose you write a generic piece of code that some third party then includes in an operating system, but you're the only relevant person in the jurisdiction. Are you now an "operating system provider"? If the "operating system" is made by hundreds of people or more, is it none of them or all of them or what?

Suppose you're a company and you've got a bunch of servers, which are computers, and you have root on them, i.e. you "control" the "operating system".

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#104

Post by Ekaros »

bloppe wrote: post #40

> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.

BIOS or now UEFI support basic functions of computers... Does that mean those should as well have On-Device age checks?

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#105

Post by jasonjayr »

close04 wrote: post #55
xt00 wrote: post #2

Do we know who is funding this? is this one of these things where Meta doesn't want the responsibility for this, so they are pushing to have the OS have the responsibility or something like that?

It must be OS responsibility because that’s the only place that allows the next step. Everyone is so concerned with kids pretending to be adults, what about adults pretending to be kids? Any service that has any kind of private chat or picture sharing option will be a playground for “verified” kids. Next step, “we must go further with the verifications until everyone is verified everywhere”. This is where the OS part…

MS is ratcheting up the 'mandatory Microsoft account' on Windows, probably for this reason. The 'identity strongly bound with the device' stuff on corporate devices is being tested and secured in that environment, and it is almost certainly one step from being forced onto non-corporate devices, once they 'have to' by law.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#106

Post by hackinthebochs »

Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #25
hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

Like the authors of these bills, you appear not to understand the technology. Consider AB1043. It mandates that applications check the age of the user each time the application is launched. Think about what that means when you run `make` in a source directory. How many times is the compiler application launched?

Let's try to be a little bit sensible here. Presumably the requirement to check depends on the nature of the application. A completely offline app for example has no use for an age check and thus wouldn't need to read it.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#107

Post by anthk »

everdrive wrote: post #102

I've been trying to download media for a while now. I don't have a huge collection; most media is not actually very good. But, the internet soon will just be an awful conglomeration of cable TV / a big shitty mall / a horrible outrage & propaganda machine. It's already most of the way there. Either destroyed from within by bots, data brokers and corporations, or destroyed from without by government, surveillance, and…

I mainly post in Usenet and IRC, and download PD movies (seriously) and books. I don't pirate any more because even current pirated media it's somehow a free advertisement for these people.

From Gutenberg, PD comics from the golden era -and pulp scifi-, noir movies, old weird science/fantasy series in B/W and whatnot, I'm pretty much covered. Ironically most current scifi media can be traced to...Bradbury novels, PKD's paranoia and some Weird Science comics.

Once 1984 gets into PD, that's it. It is in Canada, but you can read it online as long as you don't download or share it:

https://gutenbergcanada.ca/ebooks/ebooks/orwellg-nineteeneig...

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#108

Post by harrisoned »

This is tiring. The text is so vague, and if a big country adopts it software companies will comply, and there's no reason to why smaller ones wouldn't, since 'the work is already done'.

I wonder if it would be illegal for an user to use an outdated system without those functions when they roll out, or to use outdated applications, or to distribute outdated applications, or to keep mirrors of multiple versions of operating systems. I doubt they thought that far, or if they care at all.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#109

Post by mapt »

RobotToaster wrote: post #48
bloppe wrote: post #40

> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.

This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?

"General Purpose Computing Device"

A car houses numerous Turing-complete computation systems.

Post reply on HN