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

751–760 of 768 posts

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

#751

Post by ImJamal »

ece wrote: post #718
abustamam wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we need not look further than the 70 year old men in the United States senate/congress who have been in their seats for longer than I've been alive, making laws on technology they don't understand. I don't know what the solution is for California, but I don't think it's that.

The solution is to get money out out of politics. Term limits are good for the exact reason you mentioned. For tech law, there should be some sort of tech committee that knows laws like this are idiotic.

California has term limits (up to 12 years regardless of being in the assembly or senate) and this law still was passed so I don't think you are really selling term limits...

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

#752

Post by ece »

ImJamal wrote: post #751
ece wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to get money out out of politics. Term limits are good for the exact reason you mentioned. For tech law, there should be some sort of tech committee that knows laws like this are idiotic.

California has term limits (up to 12 years regardless of being in the assembly or senate) and this law still was passed so I don't think you are really selling term limits...

Term limits do prevent situations like the supreme court, where any institutional knowledge and length of terms can be weaponized for political gain.

Overall, if the objective was to have a non-identifying age flag in operating systems, this isn't the end of the world (though I would have preferred enabling other things I've mentioned here in the past like opening up OSes). If there were younger people in the legislature that tried to understand this better than octogenarians, I think term limits are working fine.

Hopefully parents can use the parental control tools built around this non-identifying flag for some good.

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

#753

Post by Yossarrian22 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #749
Yossarrian22 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without nukes to keep away the Soviets I wouldn’t be wealthy

This but unironically

To be clear I meant this literally, I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.

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

#754

Post by akdev1l »

idle_zealot wrote: post #702
heavyset_go wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not enough to just accept 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. > (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, t…

Thanks for actually reading the law for me! Yeah, that's pretty bad. I'm totally on board for requiring a common interface for platforms to indicate and check for self-reported age, but legally requiring operating systems to doubt and override user settings is unambiguously anti-user and authoritarian.

I think it’s meant for the case where a child is using an adult’s user account but maybe their own account within that

eg: you let your child use your laptop for a bit to play Roblox. The child logs into the Roblox account which has their real age. As per the law Roblox is required to use their inner age signal instead of the OS provided one.

I suppose it could also go the opposite way: if your steam account is 18 years old by itself then probably we can treat you like a grown up and ignore the OS provided signal.

I guess the latter form would be quite rare for anyone to implement.

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

#755

Post by nozzlegear »

Yossarrian22 wrote: post #753
nozzlegear wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This but unironically

To be clear I meant this literally, I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.

Ah, my bad. It read like the kind of comment that's usually steeped in sarcasm.

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

#756

Post by gatlin »

wtallis wrote: post #381
gatlin wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information . Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".

Nope, just the normal one. It asks for your age and gates further interactions based on the answer, no? That's verification.

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

#757

Post by gatlin »

calf wrote: post #331
gatlin wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

Why do I keep proposing things but they fail to exist and I can't ignore my failures?

That sounds like a question for a psychologist or clergy member.

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

#758

Post by gatlin »

eleventyseven wrote: post #625
gatlin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie. Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being ne…

Gatlin, you need to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of "verification". This is truly embarrassing for you. It really brings down the quality of the discussion.

I don't need to do anything. You however should stop condescending and issuing commands to other people.

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

#759

Post by gatlin »

eleventyseven wrote: post #623
gatlin wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

Hey gatlin, are you going to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of the word "verification"? Just delete your account.

You seem to be under the impression that you have authority over me. Fascinating.

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

#760

Post by wtallis »

gatlin wrote: post #756
wtallis wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information . Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".

Nope, just the normal one. It asks for your age and gates further interactions based on the answer, no? That's verification.

> and gates further interactions based on the answer

No. The OS does literally nothing with the age information other than water it down to a few pre-defined age brackets and pass that on to applications. There's nothing in this law that says any action has to be denied. It's information collection and reporting, with no verification, accepting the information reported by the user as-is. The law does not require the information to be true or accurate, and explicitly removes liability from app developers when their users lie about their age.

Even applications don't need to do anything with the age information, unless there's a different law already on the books saying something needs to be age-restricted. And in those cases, getting the information about whether to apply restrictions from the OS instead of however they're currently getting age information is not "verification".

"Verification" necessarily implies at least two pieces of information or steps in the process: first, an assertion of something as fact, then something to confirm that fact. This law omits the second step. There's no confirmation.

Post reply on HN