5 ms·

Reaction 1: how would this even work with embedded systems that have no UI to input this data? Reaction 2: it's open source, make the lawmakers do submit the c

• jatari 8mo ago
  It would just be unenforced for all platforms except windows, apple and android. I doubt the california legislature knows what a Linux even is.
  • trhway 8mo ago
    >I doubt the california legislature knows what a Linux even is. they would never need to know it once they learn what SecureBoot is. Any device with 1+ Gflop must have SecureBoot, and goodbye general computing.
    • cbdevidal 8mo ago
      It’s political theater. “See? We did something. Vote for us again.”
      • BuddyPickett 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        • 7e 8mo ago
          It’s clear you last poked your head out of a hole in the ground 30 years ago. Check out the iPhone and the Internet while you’re up here, they will blow your mind.
    • wombatpm 8mo ago
      It’s the V-chip and Clipper chip madness all over again. While they are at it can they start requiring the rich, famous, and powerful to get age verification before interacting with people to prevent another Epstein?
  • theptip 8mo ago
    Exactly. This is obviously targeted at these three, and in those cases will be a massive improvement over forcing every site operator to start collecting photo ID.
  • BuddyPickett 8mo ago
    To small to be of any concern.
  • nozzlegear 8mo ago
    > I doubt the california legislature knows what a Linux even is. All Congress critters have staff to help write the bills and fill out the policy. You can bet your sweet bippy that there are people on staff in the California legislature who know what a Linux even is.
  • georgefrowny 8mo ago
    The big three will love this. They'll implement the feature, then they get to dob in Linux and friends and get them buried in regulatory lawsuits. All three already have identity linked accounts. Windows practically shoves it down your throat on install, for example. They'll love the excuse to finally disallow web-free accounts. Windows servers are so back baby!
    • averysmallbird 8mo ago
      It’s only enforced by the CA Attorney General, and I’d be surprised to see a threat, let alone a lawsuit, against Linux on this. Not to say this is ideal.
• vineyardmike 8mo ago
  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 consoles. That’s it. Enforcement applies as civil fines per-child usage. So no suppression of speech by banning distribution. (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)
  • whateverboat 8mo ago
    Is a repository on a linux machine an app store? Are custom repositories app stores? Does this mean that now most automated deployments are now not automated? If they can be automated, does that mean that having the automation by default makes sense?
    • vineyardmike 8mo ago
      The law defines a user as a child running software on a general purpose computer. > “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device. It’s definitely more vague that necessary, but I’d imagine courts would readily find automated software deployment by an adult or corporation does not constitute a child using the device. Especially if done for servers or a fleet. Because then it’s pretty obvious that a child is not the primary user of the computer nor the software. Even if that software is a server that involves childish activities (eg game servers). But I’d imagine that Linux package managers associated with a desktop operating system provider would fall under this law. And that raises questions about the software distributed by said package managers.
      • reactordev 8mo ago
        Flat packs are fucked… What’s going to happen when there’s no UI, just a shell, and they pacman -S <mything>? This law is unconstitutional based on criteria of vagueness. If they want it to stick, they need to call out the commercial app stores of Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc where a credit card is attached. Otherwise it’s too vague a term unless they define “store”.
• hliyan 8mo ago
  Continually surprised by politicians wanting an OS to do what a parent should be doing. Why not just mandate that all devices with access control capabilities implement parental controls, and then mandate that all adults enable controls before handing a device to a minor? For devices that are incapable of user access control, the same rules as a knife, chainsaw or gun apply.
  • api 8mo ago
    Only wealthy parents (upper middle class or better) have the time or energy to do anything other than work, put food on the table, and do basic child care. Most parents lack the technical expertise to police digital devices.
    • twocommits 8mo ago
      [dead]
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • averysmallbird 8mo ago
    This isn’t so heavy handed. The purpose of age signaling is so that a parent can set in one place an age, and then federal privacy protections under COPPA and state protections under the AADC kick in.
  • Vicinity9635 8mo ago
    >For devices that are incapable of user access control, the same rules as a knife, chainsaw or gun apply. Well said. Parental controls are really nothing more than parents are root and kids are mere users. We shouldn't let the state or corporations be the parents, nor is it necessary. Age verification by governments or corporations isn't a substitute for parenting. And with parenting age verification by governments or corporations isn't necessary. They're doing this for some other reason than protecting kids, as usual.
• dataflow 8mo ago
  > 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.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043 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 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. Your hypothetical "embedded system" almost certainly neither has an account setup process in the first place, nor is it a general-purpose computing device, a mobile phone, or a computer. > Reaction 3: how would this ever be enforced? Pretty easily? They enforce it against the OS vendor for not providing such a process. They aren't enforcing the correctness of the age, nor are they claiming to. > Someone needs to maliciously comply, in advance, on all California government systems. ...what? This is a law demanding compliance from OS vendors. Whose compliance is it even demanding in government systems for them to be malicious about it?
  • roywiggins 8mo ago
    > 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 multipurpose computing device.
    • dataflow 8mo ago
      Does your pocket calculator with Python have an account setup process?
      • knorker 8mo ago
        I guess it's gonna have to have it, now.
• goku12 8mo ago
  > Reaction 3: how would this ever be enforced? Would they outlaw downloading distributions, or even older versions of distributions? When there's no exchange of money, a law like this is seems like it would be suppression of free speech. That's not what will happen. We've already seen examples of what will happen. So let me just list them instead: 1. The Secure Boot chain for UEFI initially mandated that only OS that were signed by Microsoft would be allowed to boot on PCs where SB is enabled. This was partially rolled back after public backlash. 2. iOS devices and majority of Android devices already don't allow you to install an alternate OS or distro. 3. Platform attestation proposals like Web Environment Integrity and its Android version. 4. Mandate that every developer must register with and pay an MNC to be able to release any app on their platforms. Basically, they'll just take away your ability to control your device in any way. Don't be surprised if it turns out that these MNCs were behind such legislations. But this legislation is especially dangerous in that it will effectively kill user-controlled general-purpose computing, even from vendors like Pine64, Framework, System76, Fairphone and Purism who are willing to offer those. Considering the amount of damage caused by these sort of legislative BS, those who propose and vote for such bills should be investigated publicly for corruption, conflict of interests and potential treason. They should be forced to divulge any relationship, directly or indirectly, with the benefactors of these bills. On the other side, rich corporations should be banned from 'lobbying' or bribery more appropriately, in matters that they have a stake in. And they should have stiff penalties for any violations. Not those couple of million dollar slaps on their wrist. At least 5% of their annual global profits, incarceration of top executives and breaking up the company. There has to be a consequence that's uncomfortable enough, for any fairness to be reestablished. This should apply even more for those professional lobbying firms and 'industry advocacy groups'. People also need to start strongly opposing, rejecting and condemning justifications like this that rely on the cliche tropes of CSAM, terrorism, public safety, national security, etc. None of those measures are necessary or even useful in preventing any of those. Insistence on the contrary should be treated as an admission of inability and incompetence of the respective authorities in tackling the problem. In fact, why do they assume that kids, especially teens, are unimaginative and incapable of working around the problem? They should at least be starting with awareness campaigns to get the kids and the parents on their side and empower parents to enforce parental controls, instead of reaching for such despotic measure right away. This is like banning drugs before the problem of drug addiction is addressed. Black markets exist, even for cyberspace. It will just make the problem a whole lot worse. And finally, don't let people without clearly proven vested interests anywhere near such regulations. And choose professionals or at least competent people for taking such decisions. You can't rein in this attack on ordinary people without stemming the uncontrolled corruption in the public offices that deal with it.
• wafriedemann 8mo ago
  i see you're a problem solver
• pmontra 8mo ago
  > Reaction 3: how would this ever be enforced? Would they outlaw downloading distributions They can outlaw you from using those distributions and/or scare the maintainers so there won't be distributions anymore. And if you want to use a desktop computer rent one from an hyperscaler, tied to a credit card and access it from a tablet with age verification. I don't know if I should add /s
• stainablesteel 8mo ago
  you're pointing out that it doesn't make sense the point of laws like these isn't to make sense, it's to be annoying
• Jemm 8mo ago
  March 1st is now officially malicious compliance day.
• interludead 8mo ago
  On the enforcement point, I suspect it won't be enforced against Linux in the abstract, but against companies with a legal and commercial presence in California