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

Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 227 posts

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#31

Post by randusername »

Many parents will not be proactive in protecting their children online and I think this is a legitimate societal problem. The idea of algorithmic feeds for adult content that descend into increasingly "engaging" depictions is something I find horrifying.

I do not want my kids to experience those "loss of innocence" moments too soon by letting their curiosity lead them into things they are not equipped to confront yet. Hell, I still have those moments as an adult on occasion.

There has to be steps we can take as a society to address these legitimate challenges ourselves so that governments can no longer hide behind them in tinkering with mechanisms for stability and control. Maybe a "sunlight disinfects" approach.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#32

Post by RobotToaster »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

> It does not require that any verification take place.

Yet

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#33

Post by linksnapzz »

quesera wrote: post #24
LtWorf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that they want to do these checks in a country where even the checks for voting are very iffy.

FWIW, there are vanishingly few problems with improper voting in the US, and the extremely unusual occurrences are mostly PartyB voters trying to "counteract" the imaginary PartyA violations. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant.

If there's no problem w/ improper voting, then why would anyone object to measures intended to verify that the proprieties involved are being followed?

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#34

Post by alephnerd »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #29
iamnothere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is paying FOSS devs who will be implementing this? Who is providing them with legal indemnification since they are now apparently subject to fines for a fucking hobby if they do it wrong? Who is making CA the only jurisdiction instead of the myriad contradictory laws all over the place? Who is stepping in to make sure no additional legislation comes across regulating how FOSS has to include backdoors or weaken en…

>Who is paying FOSS devs who will be implementing this? honestly if they let it be known they'd do it for payment the same person who's paying off the politicians to push this through would probably pay them too.

A large number of maintainers for larger OSS projects are employed by tech companies directly.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#35

Post by rmast »

NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

Age verification passes? Now not only would extra costs be added for users to verify their age, that sounds like an age verification passes is a form factor that could easily be resold to someone else.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#36

Post by alephnerd »

iamnothere wrote: post #30
alephnerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who is paying FOSS devs who will be implementing this Most Linux maintainers are employed by Google, IBM, Facebook, and other similarly sized organizations. > Who is making CA the only jurisdiction instead of the myriad contradictory laws all over the place The US is a federal system. It's part of our checks and balances. > Who is stepping in to make sure no additional legislation comes across regulating how FOSS h…

Linux is the kernel, it has nothing to do with this. The law apparently seems to target the packager/distributor of the distribution. Many small distros are hobby distros! > The US is a federal system. It's part of our checks and balances. Nonsensical answer. Different states are passing different requirements that often contradict each other. This is going to be a nightmare. > No one. This is why organizations with…

> Many small distros are hobby distros...

Then region lock. You don't have to support California or NY or ...

> Different states are passing different requirements that often contradict each other. This is going to be a nightmare

Create regional feature flags or region lock. It's a solved problem.

> So you’re saying that we should expect those laws too

They already de facto exist contractually speaking.

> Because before now “code is speech” has ruled, and the US government have not been able to be so invasive about how computers should work

The mindset around tech regulation shifted after the 2016 election and Jan 6th. The maximalist tech civil libertarian view on privacy was an anomaly from the late 1990s to early 2010s when tech was viewed as inconsequential.

The 2016 election and Jan 6th showed otherwise.

---

The overlap between Linux daily drivers and "voters who can flip an election in California, NY, or " is nonexistent.

This also appears to be a front-run at reducing the risk of an Australia-style regulation being proposed.

Edit: can't reply

> Europe realized this with their new infosec liability regulations

European organizations (from private sectors to government agencies) sidestep this by contractually mandating SBOM and dependency requirements.

You end up with the same result, but it's essentially regulated via contracts instead of the law.

> Expecting volunteers to dump time into compliance is ridiculous. Not because they oppose the idea, but because huge swaths of the internet run on people doing something for free -- and they'll just do something else if governments begin threatening them

That's a decision a lot of governments and organizations are fine with.

OSS where maintainers are hired by sponsor organizations is already the norm, and government-backed OSS is becoming increasingly common in the EU and much of Asia.

Hobbyists who don't wish to comply can region gate within their license - that solves your liability risk and will keep regulators happy.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#37

Post by m132 »

quesera wrote: post #26
m132 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since KYC was extended to cover cryptocurrency exchanges, I have given up any faith in that this is solely about regulated currencies, or money laundering at all.

I don't understand this position. Cryptocurrency exchanges are the primary legal touch point (fiat offramp) for a lot of criminal activity. Of course they will get attention for AML.

I can understand the regulation of fiat/crypto exchanges, but the verification extends to centralized exchanges that merely facilitate exchanges one kind of purely virtual currency for another, neither of which have to be recognized as legal tender.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#38

Post by butILoveLife »

randusername wrote: post #31

Many parents will not be proactive in protecting their children online and I think this is a legitimate societal problem. The idea of algorithmic feeds for adult content that descend into increasingly "engaging" depictions is something I find horrifying. I do not want my kids to experience those "loss of innocence" moments too soon by letting their curiosity lead them into things they are not equipped to confront yet…

Huh... I am the opposite.

I want my kids exposed to the brutal realities of the world asap.

I reflect that my innocence caused me to make some extreme major mistakes as a young adult that took a decade to show itself. I cannot go back, and now I am suffering terribly.

I blame my parents at least a little bit, but I blame western idealism more majorly.

Re: Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

#39

Post by Bender »

nszceta wrote: post #8
NoraCodes wrote: post #4

This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…

There is no limit to the power grab. The only acceptable thing to do is to dig the trenches before it gets worse.

My trench is keeping backups of ISO's that do not contain this creeping garbage. I will manually patch apps and where I can't the OS will be read-only and ephemeral. This will be my process until governments are no longer vulnerable to bribery.

I suspect the dark pattern this will lead to is user-maintained ISO's as was the early days of Microsoft. People would slip-stream in patches, applications, better default settings and in some cases, malware.

Post reply on HN