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

California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 525 posts

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#391

Post by tardedmeme »

soraminazuki wrote: post #322
forgetfreeman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Enabling government spying under the guise of "protecting children" doesn't put private industry in check one bit. It's like saying we should install Flock cameras everywhere so that we can protect consumers from buying harmful products. Corruption and mass-violation of human rights is all that's ever going to come out of it. If the goal is to stop predatory companies, why not do so? Oh right, because that was never…

Do you really believe that your computer asking you if you're over 18 is government spying? I don't believe that you really believe that.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#392

Post by tardedmeme »

kyledrake wrote: post #372
forgetfreeman wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And every time you remove legislation you open up entire new vistas of corporate depravity and as the last 40 years have comprehensively demonstrated, "market forces" are not a viable replacement for legislation. Increasing government power is a liability only and solely when folks make a habit of electing incompetents and the corrupt. Governance as a concept is fine, what you're actually arguing for is better politi…

Having the government burrow into your Linux install like North Korea is totally fine as long as the people doing it are competent and not corrupt!

telling Debian it should ask you during setup whether you're over 18 (which you're allowed to lie about) is the same as North Korea now?

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#393

Post by feelamee »

mikestorrent wrote: post #63
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe. but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something li…

> what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something like this?

> before they're ready to handle it

You can restrict any access for the network to them. Extra bonus, this will save your child from addiction.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#394

Post by d1sxeyes »

tyre wrote: post #368
vincnetas wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Its like in some countries you put a sticker on the mail box "no advertisement, please" and its illegal tor postman to deliver you ad brochures. Same could have been possible with browsers, but oh no, now you have to go out to each postman ant tell him explicitly that you do not want ads, and postman has no memory, if you tel him that you don't want ads. He can come back ten minutes later and you have to tell…

Fun fact: in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that postal workers cannot filter out mail by the owner’s request. It makes a bit of sense, since the mailer had already paid, but the main justification (iirc; it was years ago that I read the opinion) was that a postal service should be neutral and trusted to deliver.

Imagine a similar sticker saying 'service of papers is not permitted at this address'.

Should USPS be required to respect that owners wishes here?

Sensible decision I think.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#395

Post by d1sxeyes »

LtWorf wrote: post #388
LtWorf wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those banners are in violation of GDPR. The law isn't necessarily the problem, although it could have been done better.

As always, downvoting me doesn't change the legality of those banners. The law clearly states the "deny all" button must be as prominent as the accept button, and the banners employ all sort of dark patterns.

I don't think 'the law' does clearly state that, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and honestly it's a point of pedantry, the enforcement indicates that you're right about the actual expectation, and definitely you're right about the actual usage.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#396

Post by theknarf »

daemin wrote: post #315
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

Cookie banners exist because it is a dark pattern companies use to get you to opt into marketing cookies by making the easiest thing the worst choice. This could all be handled by settings in the browser, only if the sites themselves listened to the users' browser preferences.

"Do Not Track" (DNT) is already a browser setting. It just doesn't enforce anything, nor does anyone respect it.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#397

Post by jabwd »

olalonde wrote: post #378
daemin wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie banners exist because it is a dark pattern companies use to get you to opt into marketing cookies by making the easiest thing the worst choice. This could all be handled by settings in the browser, only if the sites themselves listened to the users' browser preferences.

Lawmakers should have foreseen this would be the consequence of the law and not have gone through with it.

It is all in the law, the problem is enforcement. 99% of the cookie banners on the web you'll encounter are in fact illegal.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#398

Post by axelthegerman »

lxe wrote: post #183
Bender wrote: post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

Also should have been easy to design an OAuth like flow where the government that seems to care so damn much about age verification to attest someone's age in a privacy respecting way - only yes/no if the person is of the desired age.

But then again if it was to protect children, better support for voluntary age control would be so much more useful as most minors use devices managed/owned by their parents.

But then similar to cookie banners it is just about enabling surveillance

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#399

Post by TimTheTinker »

ochrist wrote: post #382
TimTheTinker wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that, most technical people know it, but I refuse to call it "GNU/Linux" because that's a dumb name and Richard Stallman is so over the top pedantic to constantly insist on it.

The difference is important, because there are examples of GNU without Linux (eg. GNU Hurd) and Linux without GNU (Android comes to mind).

The year of Linux on the desktop (and its broader adoption) is in part slowed by fragmentation across distros and weird names.

You wouldn't tell your mom about this great operating system she should use named "GNU/Linux". That's bad marketing.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#400

Post by whywhywhywhy »

daemin wrote: post #315
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

Cookie banners exist because it is a dark pattern companies use to get you to opt into marketing cookies by making the easiest thing the worst choice. This could all be handled by settings in the browser, only if the sites themselves listened to the users' browser preferences.

If sites don’t listen to user preferences why would the cookie banner listen to my consent.

Ultimately there’s no good excuse for the banner solution.

Post reply on HN