5 ms·

While there are some enforcement questions here, especially around non commercial OSes, most of your reactions are clearly based on the headline alone. It defi

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”.
    - gmueckl 8mo ago
      This doesn't follow. There are clear technicaö means to achieve complience in all of these scemarios. All those installers can, for example, check a file in /etc to determine the pirported user's age. If this does need external verification, this file can be signed by a third party identity checking service. If the distros ship this mechanisms enabled in their binaires, but the users install circumvention tools (e.g. a package manager without checking mechanisms) from a thurd party, the distro provider should be off the hook.
- Quarrel 8mo ago
  Android systems use Linux as their operating system, and the law applies to operating systems. Android has associated app stores, therefore Linux must follow this at account setup .. (I'm mostly hoping I'm just jesting here, that they'd surely not enforce it in this way, plus, who "provides" my Linux OS?) In any event, it does seem like a very silly overreaching law, that should be highlighted, pointed out, and laughed at. PS I have not read the law in question. I have read a PC Gamer article though, which is surely much the same.
  - echoangle 8mo ago
    Linux isn’t really an operating system but more the kernel of the OS. In this case, Android would be the OS. Do you remember this copypasta? https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/s/3nonwfDeyX https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/s/3nonwfDeyX
    - Quarrel 8mo ago
      I remember it when RMS was shouting it from the rooftops. I'm not sure that ART/Linux is any more catchy than GNU/Linux, but just as GNU wasn't the OS, neither is ART. Don't get me wrong, these are all very silly pedantic arguments in the face of such a law.
      - 1718627440 7mo ago
        They are very non silly, because whoever is the actual OS vendor gets to implement this. It's relevant whether kernel developers or OS maintainers need to implement this.
  - LtWorf 8mo ago
    Are you jesting? Honestly it could be. It's impossible to tell.
chaostheory 8mo ago
> Also it’s not age verification really Not yet, but it will be one day if it passes
alfiedotwtf 8mo ago
> per-child usage If the First Amendement is to prevent a government from letting you speak, shouldn’t that also concert a government from letting you hear that speech? If so, then this seems to go against the Forst Amendment. Sorry, Australian here so just speculating
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
  - Vicinity9635 8mo ago
    [dead]
imglorp 8mo ago
Servers still kinda fit. So, all of us-west-1?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
jmward01 8mo ago
" 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.
- flenserboy 8mo ago
  vague laws are put in place so that they can be used selectively to punish particular victims while letting friends through the nets
  - juris 8mo ago
    until you root out their friends and maliciously develop app stores for their products, then install them multiple billions of times on a docker and let them rack up charges ;) doom can run on -anything-
    - K0balt 8mo ago
      I like the way you think.
    - nakedpwr 8mo ago
      But would Mark Zuckerberg have stopped there?? Nay. I think you could still weaponize it for profit if we only dream hard enough. Lol
    - anthk 8mo ago
      >doom can run on -anything- Frotz and Zork/Tristam Island and tons of Z3 machine games cna run on a pen, on a FPGA based display and even under a PostScript file where the interpreter was done in PostScript. Heck, with Subleq and EForth some Z3 interpreter can be coded to run the games on simple hardware made with high school/advanced trade electronics kits.
  - kimixa 8mo ago
pico303 8mo ago
The language in the bill says operating system “or” application store. Isn't that then implying any operating system that would download applications, even if it doesn’t come from a store. But IANAL. Seems to me this would include TVs, cars, smart devices, etc. The Colorado version of this bill excludes devices used for physical purchase, so your gas pumps and POS systems would be excluded in CO. But I didn’t see that in the CA bill. They’re both overly broad, ill-considered, frankly terrible bills that make as much sense as putting your birthday into a brewery site or Steam. Enter your birthday and we trust you. Now do that for every single one of those 100 VMs you just deployed…
- lazide 8mo ago
  Just the idea of requiring age verification to admin each VM in a fleet of VMs makes me chuckle.
dragonwriter 8mo ago
> 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 general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles. Presumably, this based on reading the language that in the definition of "operating system developer", and then for some reason adding in "game consoles" (the actual language in both of those includes "a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing [device". (I've also rarely seen such a poorly-crafted set of definitions; the definitions in the law are in several places logically inconsistent with the provisions in which they are applied, and in other places circular on their own or by way of mutual reference to other terms defined in the law, such that you cannot actually identify what the definitions include without first starting with knowledge of what they include.)
- nostrademons 8mo ago
  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, wi-fi router, or traffic light as an "operating system" under this law? Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
  - jfengel 8mo ago
    The jury is selected randomly. They try to weed out obvious kooks, but there is no attempt to make it either reasonable or moderate. The hope is that twelve of your peers will at least avoid being able to persecute you for political goals. I hope neither of us ever has to find out.
    - 8mo ago
heavyset_go 8mo ago
> (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) It's not enough to adhere to 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, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age. Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise. The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, that is why age verification systems are implemented that way: doing so minimizes liability for developers/providers and it's cheap.
- solid_fuel 8mo ago
  > Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise. This is true, but > The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, This doesn’t follow. It says “if” the developer has clear reason, it doesn’t obligate the developer to collect additional information or build a profile. I read this as - if you in the course of business come across evidence a user is under age, you can’t ignore it. For example - “you have to ban a user if they post comments saying they are actually underage”
  - heavyset_go 8mo ago
    That would have to be litigated in court, and the easiest and cheapest way to avoid litigation is to do what all platforms currently do: make sure the person using their system is who they say they are via face scans and ID checks. As a developer, that is not the kind of liability I want to take on when I can just plug ID.me, or whatever, into my app and not worry if someone writes "im 12 lol" in a comment on my platform.
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
White_Wolf 8mo ago
By that logic, my NAS (TOS6) falls under that category.

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”.
  - gmueckl 8mo ago
    This doesn't follow. There are clear technicaö means to achieve complience in all of these scemarios. All those installers can, for example, check a file in /etc to determine the pirported user's age. If this does need external verification, this file can be signed by a third party identity checking service. If the distros ship this mechanisms enabled in their binaires, but the users install circumvention tools (e.g. a package manager without checking mechanisms) from a thurd party, the distro provider should be off the hook.
Quarrel 8mo ago
Android systems use Linux as their operating system, and the law applies to operating systems. Android has associated app stores, therefore Linux must follow this at account setup .. (I'm mostly hoping I'm just jesting here, that they'd surely not enforce it in this way, plus, who "provides" my Linux OS?) In any event, it does seem like a very silly overreaching law, that should be highlighted, pointed out, and laughed at. PS I have not read the law in question. I have read a PC Gamer article though, which is surely much the same.
- echoangle 8mo ago
  Linux isn’t really an operating system but more the kernel of the OS. In this case, Android would be the OS. Do you remember this copypasta? https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/s/3nonwfDeyX https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/s/3nonwfDeyX
  - Quarrel 8mo ago
    I remember it when RMS was shouting it from the rooftops. I'm not sure that ART/Linux is any more catchy than GNU/Linux, but just as GNU wasn't the OS, neither is ART. Don't get me wrong, these are all very silly pedantic arguments in the face of such a law.
    - 1718627440 7mo ago
      They are very non silly, because whoever is the actual OS vendor gets to implement this. It's relevant whether kernel developers or OS maintainers need to implement this.
- LtWorf 8mo ago
  Are you jesting? Honestly it could be. It's impossible to tell.

chaostheory 8mo ago

> Also it’s not age verification really Not yet, but it will be one day if it passes

alfiedotwtf 8mo ago

> per-child usage If the First Amendement is to prevent a government from letting you speak, shouldn’t that also concert a government from letting you hear that speech? If so, then this seems to go against the Forst Amendment. Sorry, Australian here so just speculating

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
- Vicinity9635 8mo ago
  [dead]

imglorp 8mo ago

Servers still kinda fit. So, all of us-west-1?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

jmward01 8mo ago

" 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.

flenserboy 8mo ago
vague laws are put in place so that they can be used selectively to punish particular victims while letting friends through the nets
- juris 8mo ago
  until you root out their friends and maliciously develop app stores for their products, then install them multiple billions of times on a docker and let them rack up charges ;) doom can run on -anything-
  - K0balt 8mo ago
    I like the way you think.
  - nakedpwr 8mo ago
    But would Mark Zuckerberg have stopped there?? Nay. I think you could still weaponize it for profit if we only dream hard enough. Lol
  - anthk 8mo ago
    >doom can run on -anything- Frotz and Zork/Tristam Island and tons of Z3 machine games cna run on a pen, on a FPGA based display and even under a PostScript file where the interpreter was done in PostScript. Heck, with Subleq and EForth some Z3 interpreter can be coded to run the games on simple hardware made with high school/advanced trade electronics kits.
- kimixa 8mo ago

pico303 8mo ago

The language in the bill says operating system “or” application store. Isn't that then implying any operating system that would download applications, even if it doesn’t come from a store. But IANAL. Seems to me this would include TVs, cars, smart devices, etc. The Colorado version of this bill excludes devices used for physical purchase, so your gas pumps and POS systems would be excluded in CO. But I didn’t see that in the CA bill. They’re both overly broad, ill-considered, frankly terrible bills that make as much sense as putting your birthday into a brewery site or Steam. Enter your birthday and we trust you. Now do that for every single one of those 100 VMs you just deployed…

lazide 8mo ago
Just the idea of requiring age verification to admin each VM in a fleet of VMs makes me chuckle.

dragonwriter 8mo ago

> 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 general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles. Presumably, this based on reading the language that in the definition of "operating system developer", and then for some reason adding in "game consoles" (the actual language in both of those includes "a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing [device". (I've also rarely seen such a poorly-crafted set of definitions; the definitions in the law are in several places logically inconsistent with the provisions in which they are applied, and in other places circular on their own or by way of mutual reference to other terms defined in the law, such that you cannot actually identify what the definitions include without first starting with knowledge of what they include.)

nostrademons 8mo ago
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, wi-fi router, or traffic light as an "operating system" under this law? Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
- jfengel 8mo ago
  The jury is selected randomly. They try to weed out obvious kooks, but there is no attempt to make it either reasonable or moderate. The hope is that twelve of your peers will at least avoid being able to persecute you for political goals. I hope neither of us ever has to find out.
  - 8mo ago

heavyset_go 8mo ago

> (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) It's not enough to adhere to 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, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age. Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise. The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, that is why age verification systems are implemented that way: doing so minimizes liability for developers/providers and it's cheap.

solid_fuel 8mo ago
> Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise. This is true, but > The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, This doesn’t follow. It says “if” the developer has clear reason, it doesn’t obligate the developer to collect additional information or build a profile. I read this as - if you in the course of business come across evidence a user is under age, you can’t ignore it. For example - “you have to ban a user if they post comments saying they are actually underage”
- heavyset_go 8mo ago
  That would have to be litigated in court, and the easiest and cheapest way to avoid litigation is to do what all platforms currently do: make sure the person using their system is who they say they are via face scans and ID checks. As a developer, that is not the kind of liability I want to take on when I can just plug ID.me, or whatever, into my app and not worry if someone writes "im 12 lol" in a comment on my platform.
- NetMageSCW 7mo ago

White_Wolf 8mo ago

By that logic, my NAS (TOS6) falls under that category.