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

81–90 of 537 posts

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

#81

Post by FuckButtons »

gh02t wrote: post #61
stevenalowe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Illinois now requires operating system providers, open source projects included, to build age verification by 2028" however "nothing in the bill has teeth against someone with no business presence in Illinois"

Companies like Red Hat/IBM operate in Illinois and for better or worse have controlling interests in Linux and across open source projects pretty broadly. Wouldn't they be forced to include the capability in their products, which then percolate out to everyone just by network effects?

finally the die hard systemd haters will have an actually valid point.

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

#82

Post by unethical_ban »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #59
mosura wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a technical ratchet. Once you accept part of the implementation it will never be undone, more will be added.

Literally a slippery slope argument

"Slippery slope" is a term like "conspiracy theory". Tarnished by overuse, often misapplied, but they absolutely exist.

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

#83

Post by MrJohz »

shevy-java wrote: post #44
Aurornis wrote: post #24

Not that I'm condoning it, but this law requires self-declaration, not verification. It might sound pedantic but the practical difference is huge. Self-declaration means that the system asks the user to declare if they are a minor. Nothing is verified. Age verification typically means a system which checks ID or has other enforcement measures to try to verify age.

I don't see the argument here. You can easily adjust the law to force verification. You seem to assume that "this is now final, nothing will change after that". Why would you assume this to be the case?

But they could also just implement verification now, which many governments are trying to do. The idea that you shouldn't let a government do one thing because they might do another thing is flawed if they could already do the other thing.

The danger of a slippery slope comes when one change enables the next change - for example, a law mandating certain kinds of data collection enables a future decision to discriminate or control based on the collected data. But in this case, no data is being collected, there's no step happening here that enables a more dangerous later step.

If anything, I'd argue this makes it harder to implement more invasive measures later, because rather than arguing that some form of age control is necessary, Illinois will specifically need to argue that age verification is necessary over the existing anonymous system. That's harder than saying "there is no protection for children right now, age verification is the only way forward".

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

#84

Post by nickff »

kej wrote: post #58

I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion. Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.

Having the ability to identify who is watching or saying what on the internet would be immensely useful to the government; the justifications are really meaningless.

Anti-money-laundering is a comparable field, as all the AML regulations and laws are ineffective at identifying money launderers, but they're wonderful for verifying (auditing and prosecuting) tax compliance.

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

#85

Post by spullara »

delecti wrote: post #67
LPisGood wrote: post #2

What does that mean, practically? The person who installed linux on that particular device is liable? >no algorithmic feeds for minors by default Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm? Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry. > Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or t…

Algorithmic feeds are just search algorithms based on what the user is asking to see with their behavior.

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

#86

Post by kube-system »

duped wrote: post #37
LPisGood wrote: post #2

What does that mean, practically? The person who installed linux on that particular device is liable? >no algorithmic feeds for minors by default Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

The text of the bill is here: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&Doc... . There's about 3.5 pages of text defining this. The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation. > "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portio…

It seems that it mostly bans behavior-based personalization that is opaque to the user. It seems to allow for several types of personalization where the user has agency.

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

#87

Post by downrightmike »

kej wrote: post #58

I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion. Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.

How dare you try to use a system that we've used for generations!

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

#88

Post by unethical_ban »

Here's my slight defense of something like this, in theory. I have not read the text of the bill.

If OSes build a standards-based way to query age of user that is logged-in, where non-admins are not allowed to adjust the age bucket, then parents can configure devices on first use to have an OS-wide enforcement of age controls.

Apps and sites would query the OS, not individual app/site accounts, for user age and act accordingly.

Apps can then lock out certain features like algo feeds and adult content more consistently.

Responsibility for proper use is still on the parent, and no verification process is put upon the operators of sites.

Not sure how I actually think about this; I'm only putting this out for discussion.

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

#89

Post by lrvick »

Linux distro founder here (stagex)

I will never be compelled to implement this, and would never merge it.

Every release requires quorum signatures by an international maintainer team, and the distro is designed to work offline-first, with some variants not even supporting network drivers in the kernel, so Illinois legislators can eat shit.

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

#90

Post by rolph »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #59
mosura wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a technical ratchet. Once you accept part of the implementation it will never be undone, more will be added.

Literally a slippery slope argument

it is the thin edge of a slippery wedge..
Post reply on HN