Live data from Hacker News

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

pcgamer.com

521–530 of 768 posts

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#521
I've taken trips to California in the past for both personal and professional reasons. I'm seriously reconsidering whether I'll do that again in the future.

What happens if I bring a laptop with an "illegal" OS without this unwanted "feature" into the state? Will I be denied access to public wifi in hotels and restaurants? Or will it grant me access, but snitch on me -- make a call to the state police to come deal with someone with an illegal laptop? Will I be forced to install a different OS while a police officer watches? Will my laptop be confiscated and destroyed as contraband? Will I be thrown in a California prison?

I don't want to take a risk and find out.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#522

Skimming the actual text of the law[1], I don't see anything particularly objectionable. Basically it requires a toggle when creating/editing a local user account that signals "this user is/is not a child". Applications could then tailor their content for child/not child audiences. Which isn't to suggest that it's a good law, just not really "age verification". [1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextCl…

OS’s which dont have user accounts (eg always root) like Haiku and Amiga are going to thrive soon …

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#524

Headline is wrong. There is no verification requirement. All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms.

> You can lie, just like porn sites today.

In the US maybe, but where I am you can't fap in peace without using a VPN or have some kind of age verification. Some of them being baroque. Example:

"We analyze your email’s digital footprint (history and reputation) against trusted databases. This is often enough to confirm that you're of legal age."

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#525
This is happening in Colorado too, meaning it could be part of a national push:

Colorado Senate Bill "26-051"

The actual bill and links to its two sponsors Matt Ball and Amy Paschal.

    https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

    https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/matt-ball

    https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/amy-paschal
It puts the infrastructure in place to do all of those things if a future(?), authoritarian regime wants to.

* It also reveals that visitors to any site are children, compromising their privacy and opening them up to targeted advertising

* The data will undoubtedly be added to the accumulated, traded databases so many services use

* The bill makes onerous demands of developers to consider other items that may suggest the user is actually in a different age bracket, like doing websearches for "toys" (child) or "toys" (adult) - which works what percentage of the time, exactly?

* And it's totally ineffective, since kids can look at porn anywhere they want, or internationally, regards of useless bill like this

The most egregious part of this bill is that:

* It legislates that if kids connect to a website, that website can query their age brackets (an "age signal"). This means their approximate age is revealed for kids-specific advertising, manipulation, or even sold to a pedophile group.

A DEVELOPER SHALL REQUEST AN AGE SIGNAL WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR USER FROM AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR A COVERED APPLICATION STORE WHEN THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION IS DOWNLOADED AND LAUNCHED.

Basically SB 26-051 creates a mechanism that can be used to harvest the data that certain users are kids and then sell that data to anyone who will pay for it.

Data like this is traded internationally, which makes it tragic that elected lawmakers would waste time pushing a bill whose only mid-term effect would be making Colorado less attractive to developers and software companies.

The irony is that normally your kids would have been protected, by standard practices, from having their age exposed. This bill reverses that, putting your children at more risk.

The bill also would force many devices to provide age bracket data that are surprising to most people, because this part:

"DEVICE" MEANS ANY GENERAL-PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICE THAT CAN ACCESS A COVERED APPLICATION STORE OR DOWNLOAD AN APPLICATION.

... means anything with Internet access and storage. This includes smart televisions, thermostats, tablets, smartphones, smart watches, some fitness tracking devices, some smart toilets, and so on, all potentially reporting your activity on demand, even if that back-end service has nothing to do with porn.

The bill is also poorly structured. Clearly it's intended to focus on services like app stores (Android, Apple), but by attempting to integrate support for this into operating systems, makes it available to hostile actors for any purpose worldwide. Further, it requires developers to guess whether other available information on a user might mean they're really in a different age bracket, exposing them to fines of $2500 to $7500 per minor "affected" (note: "affected" is not defined in the bill). The exemptions give blanket protection to developers working on for-internal-use software, but give no exemptions to recreational programmers. non-profit personal software, university projects, and so on, casting a chilling effect across software engineering generally.

Lastly, the bill is ineffective. Most of the web runs on Linux, a coöperative international effort, nominally controlled by one man in Finland. There is no chance of this bill's mechanism being implemented in this context. Nor will other developers be especially interested in rewriting software for this Colorado-specific bill. Further, the kids supposedly being protected from all the Colorado native porn sites would just web-browse to nearly any porn site and be outside of Colorado anyway, if not outside the US entirely.

These sponsors aren't alone. Most elected lawmakers are equally bad at technology and protecting democracy from the threats that come from chipping away at privacy protection. Bills like this appear in other states all the time, despite being toothless, easily circumvented by kids (who trivially circumvent even face photo hurdles), or radically compromising the privacy of adults (like this one).

There's also the long game, where these sometimes Democrat-led bills in various states could eventually see a much deeper-reaching federal one, where, instead of a "age signal", the user's computer must send an "ID signal", allowing all personal interactions with the Internet to be tracked, analyzed for political and other biases, and used by backbone firewalls to control exactly what people are allowed to read. Very handy for a dictator who might want to block off "fake news".

This is only a hypothesis, but one has to wonder whether sponsors to such bills even care if the bills work or pass, since either way they still get to claim they Protected the Children! even though the bills themselves violate privacy for everyone, often cause websites about breast cancer to be censored, or pave the way for authoritarian control - something this one stands out for. The only thing really surprising is that this bill wasn't sponsored by MAGA Republicans deliberately to add another paving stone to the road to national censorship.

I urge everyone to get in touch with other Colorado representatives to call for a fight against this travesty of a bill. Further, I would excoriate the two sponsors by email and phone, and tell them now that you will not reward this sort of juvenile lawmaking with your vote. Lastly, tell other people about how Matt and Amy plan to strip away their privacy in a way that puts children more at risk than doing nothing.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#527
post #521

I've taken trips to California in the past for both personal and professional reasons. I'm seriously reconsidering whether I'll do that again in the future. What happens if I bring a laptop with an "illegal" OS without this unwanted "feature" into the state? Will I be denied access to public wifi in hotels and restaurants? Or will it grant me access, but snitch on me -- make a call to the state police to come deal wi…

This law only applies to people distributing an operating system. It has nothing to do with what you personally use.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#528
It’s a shit law, but it’s publisher- and distributor-targeted, so the overly-dramatic armchair-rebels in the forum can calm themselves; nobody’s coming after the person with a Linux machine bc it’s not compliant. Because it’s a state law, Cali will have geo-fenced app stores and this’ll just accelerate the breakout from manufacturer-maintained app stores. Websites that host downloads will just have a user attestation that they’re not Californians and be hosted abroad. There’s also no verification method; it’s literally just a requirement that account creation asks for an age - something websites do all the time and is not remotely burdensome, just ask all the ones convinced my DoB is a year and 4 months after my actual.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#529
post #521

I've taken trips to California in the past for both personal and professional reasons. I'm seriously reconsidering whether I'll do that again in the future. What happens if I bring a laptop with an "illegal" OS without this unwanted "feature" into the state? Will I be denied access to public wifi in hotels and restaurants? Or will it grant me access, but snitch on me -- make a call to the state police to come deal wi…

All of those worries you list are extreme and unreasonable and ruled out by spending two minutes reading the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

The only remedies listed are:

> 1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation, which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.

And there are several other provisions that further narrow the circumstances under which this law could be enforced.

If your personal computer is not being used by a child, and you're not distributing software to children or devices used by children, then there are no circumstances under which your actions could violate this law.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are some enforcement questions here, especially around non commercial OSes, most of your reactions are clearly based on the headline alone. It defines operating system in the law. This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game console…

Is a repository on a linux machine an app store? Are custom repositories app stores? Does this mean that now most automated deployments are now not automated? If they can be automated, does that mean that having the automation by default makes sense?

Android systems use Linux as their operating system, and the law applies to operating systems.

Android has associated app stores, therefore Linux must follow this at account setup ..

(I'm mostly hoping I'm just jesting here, that they'd surely not enforce it in this way, plus, who "provides" my Linux OS?)

In any event, it does seem like a very silly overreaching law, that should be highlighted, pointed out, and laughed at.

PS I have not read the law in question. I have read a PC Gamer article though, which is surely much the same.

Post reply on HN