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

641–650 of 768 posts

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

#641

Post by giantg2 »

flenserboy wrote: post #475
jmward01 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles. That’s it" Everything is a general purpose computer. Just look at how many things have been made to run doom. I haven't read the law specifically but if it actually does say this then that language is useless and means practically everything.

vague laws are put in place so that they can be used selectively to punish particular victims while letting friends through the nets

Vague laws are not required for selective enforcement. You can have strictly defined laws result in selective enforcement through law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion.

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

#642

Post by giantg2 »

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

Not exactly true as you can do local account installs.

I wonder if you can get around the law by just having people build their own image from the source.

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

#643

Post by alkonaut »

How is this an OS concern? Shouldn't age verification be a government concern to implement a system which does a privacy preserving verification? And until such a system exists, there should be no laws about online verification at all?

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

#645

Post by coldtea »

alkonaut wrote: post #643

How is this an OS concern? Shouldn't age verification be a government concern to implement a system which does a privacy preserving verification? And until such a system exists, there should be no laws about online verification at all?

Why would a government be interested in "privacy preserving"? Their goal is the exact opposite.

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

#646

Post by dataflow »

knorker wrote: post #586
dataflow wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your pocket calculator with Python have an account setup process?

I guess it's gonna have to have it, now.

What? Nowhere do they stipulate you have to add that. They just say if you do account setup, then you need to provide such an interface.

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

#649

Post by dragonwriter »

nostrademons wrote: post #626
dragonwriter wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It defines operating system in the law. No, it doesn't. It defines the following terms: "account holder", "age bracket data", "application", "child", "covered application store", "developer", "operating system provider", "signal", and "user". > 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 gen…

In typical jury trials, the jury is instructed that any terms not defined in the relevant statutes are to have their common-sense, ordinary meanings as understood by the jury. The jury is usually also selected to be full of reasonable, moderate people, and folks who are overly pedantic usually get excused during voir dire. Do you really think a pool of 12 people off the street is going to consider an embedded system,…

Not sure why you are appealing to the rule on terms that aren’t defined, since the actual question is whether or not thet consider the vendor of the software powering the device as an “operating system vendor” which is, in fact, defined in the law, and the answer there seems to be hinge on whether or not they think it is a general purpose compute device, which would seem almost certain to be no for a traffic light, and likely to be no (but more debatable and potentially variable from instance to instance) in the other cases you list.

> Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?

Not sure what having accounts or users “as a common sense member if the public would understand them” is relevant to since, to the extent having a “user” is relevant in the law, it to is defined (albeit both counterintuitively and circularly) in the law, and having an “account” isn’t relevant to the law at all.

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

#650

Post by anikom15 »

nomel wrote: post #447
safety1st wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first reaction is that this is an insanely bad law: * The signal has to be made available to both apps and websites * So if you dutifully input valid ages for your computer users, now any groomer with a website or an app can find out who's a kid and who isn't. You just put a target on your kid's back. * A fair share of parents will realize this, and in order to protect their children, will willfully noncomply. So…

I'm not sure what the solution is, but to steel man a bit, the alternative is kids have access to all the adult spaces, where they will be groomed. A website/app serving grooming content to a kid is just so incredibly unlikely compared to a kid being groomed as the result of having unrestricted access. Since I do not see a solution, and you see identifying children as a risk, what do you see as a solution for kids be…

The solution is parental liability.
Post reply on HN