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

GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 171 posts

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#31

Post by endofreach »

OutOfHere wrote: post #10

I think that malicious compliance all the way might have been the better option here. If a birth date is all that is needed, let the user enter a random one. If actual biometric verification is needed alongside, let the user also paste the code to a fake biometric validator that always returns valid. It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let…

Agree. I didn't even think of that. Embarrassing. Your approach might have been the best option.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#32

Post by moffkalast »

idle_zealot wrote: post #22
moffkalast wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could just ship it along on an SD card with a single button install you do yourself. Technically not preinstalled.

This is emblematic of a misunderstanding technologists often have about the law. We try to treat it like code we can exploit and hack around. But there is no compiler deterministically producing outcomes. Of course, this misunderstanding is often bolstered by the accurate observation that lawyers and businesses find loopholes and favorable interpretations that to us appear much like the exploits we propose. The criti…

Right, my bad. It's easy to forget our society is a convoluted backroom quid pro quo even if we pretend otherwise on paper.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#33

Post by applfanboysbgon »

mmooss wrote: post #24
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving in in any capacity is unacceptable. The GrapheneOS foundation is based in Canada and is not obligated to record this information, so they wont. They have no reason to comply, be it malicious or otherwise.

[flagged]

If you want a privacy-violating OS, there are already two big options on the market. A secure OS for people who do not live in authoritarian surveillance states offers a benefit to some people, even if not all people. A third privacy-violating OS offers no value to anyone anywhere in the world.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#34

Post by WhyNotHugo »

OutOfHere wrote: post #10

I think that malicious compliance all the way might have been the better option here. If a birth date is all that is needed, let the user enter a random one. If actual biometric verification is needed alongside, let the user also paste the code to a fake biometric validator that always returns valid. It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let…

You'd need to closely read the law and have a lawyer advise you, but a neat attempt might be to just ask for the date of birth, send that "in real time" to the App Store program, and then have that program simply discard it?

I don't think current iterations of the law require that this be sent off-device in any way.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#35

Post by snackbroken »

mmooss wrote: post #24
HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving in in any capacity is unacceptable. The GrapheneOS foundation is based in Canada and is not obligated to record this information, so they wont. They have no reason to comply, be it malicious or otherwise.

[flagged]

People who live in authoritarian states like North Korea or California can (and arguably should) ignore the fact that GrapheneOS is illegal where they live and use it anyway.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#36

Post by stego-tech »

Good on them. Devices shouldn't collect any extraneous data by default other than that needed to fulfill a feature a user consciously selects, and that includes this stupid age verification spyware regimes are pushing.

An adult had to pay for the ISP connection; that's the extent of age verification needed. We shouldn't be demanding adults expose their identities to for-profit entities and surveillance states, so much as mandating for-profit companies make parental controls easier to use, more effective, and stopping them from harvesting data on kids in the first place.

Not every corner of the universe needs to be baby-proofed; we just need to build a society where parents are enabled and supported to be parents, rather than outsourcing such a critical role to strangers and/or devices so they can get back to work.

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#37

Post by razingeden »

Svoka wrote: post #8

Seems like a pure virtue signaling: they don't sell or make hardware. It is mandated only for pre-installed operating systems, from what I understand.

Virtue signal away. I’m with whatever device and OS purveyors are willing to tell these tyrants to get stuffed.

I haven’t cut over to it completely yet but I think this’ll be the last nail in the coffin for my time as an Apple user. It’s already a loveless marriage , it’s already over, I’m already sleeping with GrapheneOS on the side. it’s asking when I’m going to leave her and it’s always “soon, baby. soon.”

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#38

Post by Polizeiposaune »

OutOfHere wrote: post #10

I think that malicious compliance all the way might have been the better option here. If a birth date is all that is needed, let the user enter a random one. If actual biometric verification is needed alongside, let the user also paste the code to a fake biometric validator that always returns valid. It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let…

Asking the device owner for the user's birth date is precisely what the (California) law requires.

Biometrics are not required.

The concept appears to be that a parent or guardian could enter the birth date before turning the device over to a child.

Malicious compliance would be providing this age bracket API:

boolean is_user_over_18() { sleep (18 * 365.25 * 86400); return true; }

This is a real-time interface (as required by the law) that takes 18 years to complete. (Remember: "Real-time" does not mean "fast").

Re: GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system

#39

Post by pxeboot »

stego-tech wrote: post #36

Good on them. Devices shouldn't collect any extraneous data by default other than that needed to fulfill a feature a user consciously selects, and that includes this stupid age verification spyware regimes are pushing. An adult had to pay for the ISP connection; that's the extent of age verification needed. We shouldn't be demanding adults expose their identities to for-profit entities and surveillance states, so muc…

> An adult had to pay for the ISP connection

In many countries, it is still possible to buy a prepaid SIM without any ID.

Post reply on HN