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

Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

legiscan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#61

Post by fc417fc802 »

tzs wrote: post #55
fc417fc802 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it'…

> First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?

The question itself (ie if the user is under 13) doesn't matter. Already for the current legislation there's nothing stopping the device owner from intentionally lying about the age. So really this entire exercise is about providing a standardized means of control over filtering, thus my observation that the proposed measure is both backwards and overly limited in scope.

The software on the device can do whatever it would like with the signal it receives, including consulting the user account metadata for declared age if the device owner so desires.

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#62

Post by giancarlostoro »

altairprime wrote: post #17
giancarlostoro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What for? That's kind of strange. Maybe if its a critical project, but for random projects that aren't like apache web server, nginx, or Linux Kernel, I don't care, heck I would argue if its a very very small change, and it has been scrutinized I don't care who it came from.

Raises the defensive bar for today-unaccountable slop and malware, at minimum.

[dead]

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#63

Post by chii »

CJefferson wrote: post #59
DJBunnies wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parenting problems require parenting solutions.

There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

> it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

how/why did children survive all those generations ago where these dangerous things have existed, and all of a sudden, parents are now powerless and unable to parent?

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#64

Post by Defletter »

CJefferson wrote: post #59
DJBunnies wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parenting problems require parenting solutions.

There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

It's morbidly interesting to watch public discourse on what is and isn't considered a solely-parental responsibility. For example, we seem to have more or less accepted that comprehensive sex education should be taught in school (thank goodness), in part because it cannot be assumed that all children have a parent or guardian who can or will teach them these things. And yet this same consideration barely comes up when discussing internet safety.

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#65

Post by Mashimo »

chii wrote: post #63
CJefferson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.

> it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying. how/why did children survive all those generations ago where these dangerous things have existed, and all of a sudden, parents are now powerless and unable to parent?

Well for one they did not have access to 4k 60 fps incest porn at a moments notice in your pocket.

You had to go to a special store where an adult checked your age.

But I guess the better option would be to give parents the propper tools. For example every OS could have the option to set up a child account, that gives the age range to the app store / website the user visits. And the app store owner and website owner (of a certain size? Not sure) have to implement it. Just like store owners can't sell alcohol or porn mags to underage customers.

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#66

Post by KAMSPioneer »

floxy wrote: post #58
KAMSPioneer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the text says "or," not "and." So by my interpretation if you process user data but are available via "free, public" repo, you're not covered. I presume "free" is defined elsewhere in the text, and that it approximates "open-source."

>(3) THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO: (e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.

Aha, thanks! So I think that raises the question of whether e.g. RHEL is affected. Technically it could be argued that they don't add any additional restrictions, but I wonder if Colorado will see it that way.

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#67

Post by tomhow »

declan_roberts wrote: post #30

This TOTALLY ORGANIC movement to suddenly please think about the children with required age verification in software makes me sick. Whoever is behind this needs to be exposed, tarred, and feathered.

Please don't fulminate or use all-caps on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#69

Post by tardedmeme »

Cider9986 wrote: post #39

Call it an Identity Verification Bill, or think of something even more negative. That is more accurate and doesn't sound as attractive. Names matter. We saw ChatControl 1.0 get defeated, it probably didn't hurt that the name implied censorship.

But it doesn't verify your identity so why would you call it that? It just says an OS has to have the option to create a child user account.

Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects

#70

Post by tardedmeme »

Mashimo wrote: post #65
chii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying. how/why did children survive all those generations ago where these dangerous things have existed, and all of a sudden, parents are now powerless and unable to parent?

Well for one they did not have access to 4k 60 fps incest porn at a moments notice in your pocket. You had to go to a special store where an adult checked your age. But I guess the better option would be to give parents the propper tools. For example every OS could have the option to set up a child account, that gives the age range to the app store / website the user visits. And the app store owner and website owner…

That's literally precisely what this bill does.
Post reply on HN