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

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

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 768 posts

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

#591

Post by treve »

roywiggins wrote: post #503
dataflow wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how would this even work with embedded systems that have no UI to input this data? Doesn't the bill explain all this pretty clearly? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... >> An operating system provider shall [...] provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user [...] >> “Operating system provider” means…

> general-purpose computing device This term doesn't seem defined in the law at all. How general is general? Graphing calculators that support apps and Python? Of course, they don't usually have "accounts" either. But to a technologist it's a "general purpose computer" insofar as it can run new code that the user loads into it, it can definitely run games that it didn't come from the factory with, etc. It's a tiny mu…

Laws in the US aren't taken as literal as in civil law systems. The intent and precedent is what carries much more weight in the end. Graph calculators are unlikely to be tested in court because it's irrelevant with respect to what this law is trying to accomplish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

I often see laws discussed here and people finding some edge case and presenting this as a gotcha. The reality is that it's unlikely to matter.

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

#592

Post by alistairSH »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #338
cyberax wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah. I feel sooooo good dealing with Comcast. At this point in life, I spent more time on the phone with Comcast support than I ever spent time in various DMV offices. > A company must maintain profitability to stay alive. Yeah. And once it becomes a monopoly (like Comcast), it can just keep raising prices.

Have you ever called the DMV? In my state it's worse than Comcast. 45min wait time when the lines open in the morning, only increasing from there. I "owe" Comcast $200. They say I didn't cancel at an old apartment. I say I did. I have the email. They insist. They've sent me a letter once a year for a decade. About 2yr in it went to collections. They're still trying. Imagine the consequences if I did that with governm…

I have! I made an 8am appt (that’s when they open). They let me in the door at 7:58. I was back in my car driving home by 8:12.

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

#593

Post by knorker »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #429
dataflow wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The micro stamping law is in no way reasonable because removing the micro stamping from the end of a firing pin is laughably trivial. The only people who won’t do this are people who weren’t going to break the law in the first place. I'm curious, so if (when?) California ends up successfully hunting down some criminals with this, what is your new position going to be? They were going to get caught anyway, or someth…

It'll never happen. As op said, it's laughably trivial to remove, and thus criminals will remove it. Legitimate gun users will, at best, use their weapon in self defense, in which case they'll be sitting there waiting when the police arrive, so no need for microstamping. The "crime of passion" so popular in TV shows are few and far between, and there's usually a huge amount of other evidence.

I think you're overestimating the intelligence of most criminals. And their gun logistics discipline.

If it were possible to do, it'd help.

Also, removing the marking mechanism would be a process crime. Process crimes are very useful for catching criminals.

Are you against serial numbers on guns too? You can always file those down.

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

#594

Post by upofadown »

al_borland wrote: post #542
upofadown wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ... Not really. >...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store. So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as: e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or…

Wouldn’t that classification apply to Linux package managers as well? They are publicly available online services that distribute and facilitate the download of applications from third party developers to users of a general purpose computing device.

That doesn't seem to be the intent for something like, say, Debian. How would that work anyway?

This would probably cover something like a Linux based Steam box, where there are different organizations providing applications.

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

#595

Post by fusionadvocate »

al_borland wrote: post #536
nlitsme wrote: post #249

I will start making a list for linux then. rm - ok for all ages. grep - 18+, you can obviously use this to search for porn. find - 18+, see grep. reboot - ok for all ages. echo - ok for all ages. cat - 18+, prints the porn you found directly to your terminal. sudo - 18+, obviously. kill - ok for all ages. This is the US, right. ps - 18+, no peeping at other processes.

rm needs to be 18+, kids could use it to cover their tracks.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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

#596

Post by xtiansimon »

> "That's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure."

I've been working around the Microsoft user-creation requirement for years. Looks like they were ahead of the game. CA is marching towards private-business surveillance. What could go wrong?

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

#597

Post by rendaw »

upofadown wrote: post #407
lysace wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... I think mistercheph is right to be concerned. This bill applies to all "operating system providers", defined thusly: (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. Regarding penalities: 1798.503. (a) A…

>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ... Not really. >...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store. So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as: e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or…

It doesn't say "only if there's a covered application store present on the system". But maybe everyone in power will interpret this non-logically in exactly the right way that this doesn't become abusive.

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

#598

Post by solid_fuel »

heavyset_go wrote: post #581
vineyardmike wrote: post #408

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…

> (Also it’s not age verification really, it’s just a prompt that asks for your age to share as a system API for apps from above app store, no verification required) It's not enough to adhere to the age signal: > (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age. > (…

> Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise.

This is true, but

> The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans,

This doesn’t follow. It says “if” the developer has clear reason, it doesn’t obligate the developer to collect additional information or build a profile.

I read this as - if you in the course of business come across evidence a user is under age, you can’t ignore it. For example - “you have to ban a user if they post comments saying they are actually underage”

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

#599

Post by upofadown »

rendaw wrote: post #597
upofadown wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ... Not really. >...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store. So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as: e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or…

It doesn't say "only if there's a covered application store present on the system". But maybe everyone in power will interpret this non-logically in exactly the right way that this doesn't become abusive.

Laws are designed and intended to be reasonable. I think you are using an inappropriate form of logic here. The intent of the law is fairly obvious.
Post reply on HN