461–470 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're in the ninth circuit you're safe because of Bernstein v DoJ.
If you're in the sixth circuit you're even safer because of Junger vs Daley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just make it a liability for social media companies. Let them figure it out. This is how we age gate everything else.
Why are you people in such a hurry to have facebook et al collecting government IDs?
I want kids off social media. I don't care what happens next. If we're really concerned about this, also make it a legal liability for social media companies to retain IDs collected to verify age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay well if they want to jail me for being unable to comply with violating the privacy of the users of the Linux distro I work on it. Cool, I guess. They would sure be wasting a lot of resources and public goodwill with absolutely no positive outcome for their agenda. Which is why I do not think it will actually happen. But if it does, it does. Not going to live my life in fear, I have more security and privacy tool…
I don’t think they’re going to spend any resources on going after you because: * your project might not even qualify under the text of the law * even if it did, the number of children using it to access social media is likely zero
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay well if they want to jail me for being unable to comply with violating the privacy of the users of the Linux distro I work on it. Cool, I guess. They would sure be wasting a lot of resources and public goodwill with absolutely no positive outcome for their agenda. Which is why I do not think it will actually happen. But if it does, it does. Not going to live my life in fear, I have more security and privacy tool…
I don’t think they’re going to spend any resources on going after you because: * your project might not even qualify under the text of the law * even if it did, the number of children using it to access social media is likely zero
But, none of this was about protecting kids. It never was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. They are never going to actually come for niche Linux distros. All the more reason I am pushing back on all the fear. The correct response from the Linux community is to say "fuck off", and get back to making their distros more secure, more private, and easier to use.
Major distros will comply because they want to sell their services in Illinois. I don’t think noncompliance of a container image is much of a “fuck you” since I don’t think lawmakers have ever heard of you nor would they really care about your compliance anyway. This bill is primarily about kids using smartphones.
Anyway. Kids are an excuse to get it passed. It is about testing the waters of how much control can be exerted by government on end user devices, and we need all maintainers to hold the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary, civil disobedience involves openly thumbing your nose at the state, and it has a long history of successes. Going to the courts instead of the legislature is another strategy that often wins. This is how Bernstein ended export restrictions on cryptography, by suing the government on constitutional grounds rather than trying to persuade legislators.
1. Civil disobedience has worked when the timing and circumstances are right, and there is a just cause and clear pattern of oppression that engages the sympathies of a broad swath of people. That is rare. Most of the time, civil disobedience has been ineffective. Remember Occupy Wall Street? Black Lives Matter? The violence that coincided with them was a major turn-off for most Americans. About the only one in recen…
I am an active FOSS maintainer who wishes to protect the privacy, security, and sovereignty of users of community owned operating systems. My goal is to signal to them that we find these types of laws so completely ridiculous and unenforceable, that they should worry less about maintainers injecting state malware into their operating systems. Also it is to signal to other maintainers they will not be alone in resisting this.
With those goals in mind I am happy to tell any legislators pushing this sort of thing, to eat shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're in the sixth circuit you're even safer because of Junger vs Daley.
Stop it. This is not something either of you are competent to provide legal advice about. Anyone concerned about this should consult a licensed attorney, not get advice from randos on HN.
Anyone should be free to research, discuss, and try to understand the law for themselves. Lawyers do not own the law.
But if actually pulled into a courtroom, sure, get a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent. Most people prioritize their finances (and non-imprisonment) over their rights, and attorneys will optimize for that expressed preference. GP has clearly indicated his priorities are different. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Someone having a different set of values than you does not constitute unintelligence on his part.
GP said they wanted to take it to court. I presume that means they wanted to win, in which case the best strategy is to discuss the issue in private with an attorney before making public statements that could undermine your ability to win. If the actual priority here is advocacy, with no real desire to litigate, then I'd buy that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are more of us than it appears, but we usually don’t speak out. Thanks for making a stand.
We get their intentions. We just disagree with the effectiveness of it. Posting rhetoric on an anonymous message board is not making a stand. If and when they’re doxxed by US media outlets, and slapped with life-changing court orders, with their work and families directly affected by their decisions; then they’re making a stand. But until that point, their words are as meaningless as their view of this law. Eg I can…
This law is stupid and I gleefully and openly mock it and those that think it is enforceable under my well known public identity.
No one should take these unenforceable overreaches seriously. People will be jailed for not putting age verification code in software as soon as they will for piracy, or owning a 3D printer without gun-detecting spyware. It is a fear tactic with no ability to enforce.
My message here should be pretty clear: Open source international community owned operating systems can just completely refuse to comply and nothing will happen to them.
So in red states porn is being used, and in blue states TikTok and Instagram are being used. Is anyone tracking who is behind the concerted efforts here? For example, which organizations, executives, lobbyists and politicians are valid and responsible parties?
Meta is one of the biggest ones pushing for this, because they don't want to be accountable so these types of laws pass the buck onto the delivery platforms (Apple, Google, other OSes) Meta is then funding/lobbying alongside a bunch of other conservative groups like Heritage Action, and the digital childhood alliance (also made up of a ton of other conservative lobbying groups)