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

Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

linuxstans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–547 of 547 posts

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#541

Post by kej »

xp84 wrote: post #522
kej wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all know parents are far more likely to tap "OK" for "Allow personalized social feeds?" than they are to knowingly falsify their kids' age. I know lots of parents and lots of kids, and I don't think this is accurate. In my experience the breakdown is parents who care what their kids are doing online, and parents who assume it will all turn out fine because they had AOL or even Facebook as teenagers and didn't ge…

How is it a punishment to that first group? If you like the status quo, there's no impact to you if you just set the DOB to 1/1/1999. Or are you waiting for some science-fiction proposal that will be completely perfect, which you know will never happen. > The uninvolved parents won't even be in the room when the age question comes up. We agree that idiot parents (and therefore their kids) can't be helped. So let's ju…

>there's no impact to you if you just set the DOB to 1/1/1999.

Having to take an action is the opposite of no impact to me.

The problem is caused by social media companies designing their products to be addictive. This law puts a lot of requirements on parties other than the social media companies.

If you want to sell alcohol, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the alcohol. If you want to sell tobacco, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the tobacco. But if you want to push addictive social media feeds, it is apparently now the job of device manufacturers, operating system developers, and parents to do the verification work for you.

Don't you think it's a little odd that Meta is spending money pushing these bills that shift responsibility onto other parties?

>Or are you waiting for some science-fiction proposal that will be completely perfect, which you know will never happen.

Yes, I'm waiting for a sci-fi proposal like "companies should be responsible for their actions and shouldn't require other companies to do their work for them".

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#542

Post by otterley »

DennisP wrote: post #538
otterley wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dude everybody here is smart enough not to rely on internet comments for their legal advice If only that were true. I've seen people take the law into their own hands far too often, among other bad decisions based on Internet conversations. I'm going to repeat this exhortation every time I see someone armchair lawyering.

HN != all of internet. "Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law." We live in a democracy. Every citizen is ultimately responsible for deciding what the law should be. It follows that we should talk about what the law currently is.

> "Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law."

Correct. You crossed the boundary between discussing it and giving advice. I already explained how above:

> This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice.

I did not bring it up in other threads because you weren't doing that then.

If you still don’t understand the problem, consult your own lawyer.

BTW, in nearly every state, it is unlawful to practice law without a license.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#543

Post by otterley »

lrvick wrote: post #518
otterley wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure run on top of stagex Oh, this I've got to see. Show us the receipts.

Several fintech companies, blockchains, operating systems, and server operating systems use stagex as a foundation because it is the only fully deterministic and multi-party verifiable OS stack that exists, built to resist supply chain attacks be they by politicians, blackhats, or AI bots. Look at my companies I work with via Distrust, and my resume. Most use stagex for their security critical operations, though I am…

Calling stagex a "niche Linux OS" suggests that hardly anyone uses it. Now you're claiming that "many Fortune 500" companies run it atop tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.

These two narratives materially conflict with each other.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#544

Post by tsoukase »

I could accept the solution that the superuser decides about the age bracket of each regular user, that can be changed anytime.

sudo chage -u mybob --bracket teen

Users cannot change the setting, it can be presented to apps and let parents simply and safely enforce will.

The root is the ultimate leader of the system, let him do his thing.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#545

Post by terribleperson »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #355
tzs wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your objection to the California law? A summary for those not familiar with it: • Operating systems on devices whose primary user is a child must provide a way for the parent to provide age bracket information about the child. • They must also provide an API that apps and app stores can use to find out that age range if they need to have limits on what children can do with them. • They amended it to not apply…

Among many other things, privacy. If you know an age range that's more information about the user than you should have, and you can use it for marketing. And if you can ask for an age range, then in practice you know a birthday; just keep asking until the range changes and record when you saw it change. It's also the wrong way around: apps shouldn't ask for an age range, apps should provide one and the OS should do t…

The only age range you get for adults is 18+, I think. For children, I don't think we should let companies retain that data.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#546

Post by DennisP »

otterley wrote: post #542
DennisP wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN != all of internet. "Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law." We live in a democracy. Every citizen is ultimately responsible for deciding what the law should be. It follows that we should talk about what the law currently is.

> "Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law." Correct. You crossed the boundary between discussing it and giving advice. I already explained how above: > This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice. I did not bring it up in other threads because you weren't doing that then. If you still don’t understand the problem, consult yo…

"You" sometimes means you in particular, but other times it means people in general. That's how the English language works.

I think my comment makes clear that I don't even know what district the guy lives in. It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#547

Post by otterley »

DennisP wrote: post #546
otterley wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Don't give legal advice" != "never discuss the law." Correct. You crossed the boundary between discussing it and giving advice. I already explained how above: > This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice. I did not bring it up in other threads because you weren't doing that then. If you still don’t understand the problem, consult yo…

"You" sometimes means you in particular, but other times it means people in general. That's how the English language works. I think my comment makes clear that I don't even know what district the guy lives in. It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.

> "You" sometimes means you in particular, but other times it means people in general. That's how the English language works.

It doesn't matter whether you're targeting it at an individual or a group.

> It simply discusses what the law is in the sixth district.

That may have been your intent, but that is not what happened.

At this point, I think you're choosing not to get it despite the feedback. So I'm done with this discussion.

Post reply on HN