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

71–80 of 768 posts

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

#71

Post by dismalaf »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
sandworm101 wrote: post #28

Ok. No more linux in california. Forget silicon valley. Forget all the supercomputers at research establishments. Forget all the smart TVs. Forget all the cars with in-dash computers. Let's see how long california can keep its lights on without embedded linux. In all seriousness, rather than comply, linux distros should enforce this law. Any linux install that detects itself being in california should automatically s…

How expensive do you expect such an API to cost to make? It's pretty simple.

Considering the law requires every app to do it, pretty expensive.

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

#73

Post by k310 »

Sounds to me that this is how kids learn to spin their own operating systems (a la LFS, Gentoo)and apps.

This is how people bought personal computers when the mainframe priesthood banned them.

It appears that very soon, young people will "de facto" need to have this level of competence in order to survive and thrive in a world of "in loco parentis" operating systems and apps.

The latin reveals my age, but one thing about my age:

People my age did exactly that. We built our own hardware when there was none. We compiled (or copied) operating systems and apps. A couple of my friends wrote an operating system and a C compiler.

"My generation" created this entire internet thingy, installed and web-based apps.

Indeed, dumb-asses are going to level up young people.

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

#74

Post by davorak »

frshgts wrote: post #66
davorak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which seems like a silly accidental overreach of the law. If that is the way it applies. The literal reading of the law says this only required when a child is the primary user of the device. > (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched. but 'user' here is: > (i) “User” me…

How else but the signal could it determine whether the user is an adult or not?

I do not think the law provides guidance here. The signal is only required when children are the primary device/account users. So one model would be any initial account set up is automatically considered the 'account holder' and not a child account. Then it would be prerogative of the 'account holder' to set up child accounts or not. That seems to fit into the spirt and literal parts of the law.

So grep/ls/etc are all installed as part of that 'account holder' and do not need to do any age verification.

The signal only needs to be checked when the device/account user is a child and when downloading apps. I think an unfortunate consequence here is that the literal definition of the law says package managers probably can not run on children accounts without jumping through a bunch of hoops. Which is bad for children learning code/computers/etc.

The first thing I would change about this law would be:

> (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

Any application that does not need to know a users age should not be required request the 'signal'

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

#75

Post by kkfx »

Aha... Interesting, I'm the sysadmin of myself so I verify myself that I'm entitled to be root on my iron. Sometimes politicians reveal themselves in their future program dreaming things like mandatory online accounts on corporatocracty-controlled servers for all...

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

#76

Post by sandworm101 »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
sandworm101 wrote: post #28

Ok. No more linux in california. Forget silicon valley. Forget all the supercomputers at research establishments. Forget all the smart TVs. Forget all the cars with in-dash computers. Let's see how long california can keep its lights on without embedded linux. In all seriousness, rather than comply, linux distros should enforce this law. Any linux install that detects itself being in california should automatically s…

How expensive do you expect such an API to cost to make? It's pretty simple.

Compliance is always easier than resistance. Want to keep software free? Freedom has costs.

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

#78

Post by charcircuit »

sandworm101 wrote: post #76
charcircuit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How expensive do you expect such an API to cost to make? It's pretty simple.

Compliance is always easier than resistance. Want to keep software free? Freedom has costs.

Free software doesn't mean that it can or should break the law. That is entirely tangential.

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

#79

Post by burnt-resistor »

fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

Not just 3D printers but all subtractive CNC machines too.

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

#80

Post by 9x39 »

fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

I’m more curious in the genesis of these laws, whether their sponsors received written suggestions or ghostwritten bills, etc. as a form of parallel construction.

It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

Post reply on HN