tidderuuf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wow California leading the way to fascism, who woulda thunk?
Because it’s not that crazy, authoritarian and is basically what most websites do to “verify” you age (which is to say nothing but asking you your age).
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age
The photo ID requirements are what will come next.
Maybe. But it will be funny for a little bit when the data starts showing the average age of a Californian is over 200 years.
They’ll tag all the Linux users with “1 January 1970”
I am ready to believe those that allowed this law to pass were.
It always ALWAYS comes step by step!
First they will introduce age “non-real-check”, then they will enforce the check: you have accepted the principle, so what’s the big deal if we actually check it?
How do you catch a wild pig? (i dont remember the source)
It’s more than that. Go read the bill, particularly section 1798.501.b, 1798.502.a and b. Every developer of every application that can be downloaded from every package system MUST request your age bracket every time it is downloaded. And possibly every time it is launched. Basic utilities like ‘ls’ and ‘cat’, that pong example I pushed as a test, everything.
This kinda seems like a roundabout way of avoiding government /corporate age verification laws? Like it doesn’t require ID verification or biometrics and runs a local api to verify age.
Can someone smarter than me please explain if this is a good thing or not?
I’m not saying I’m smarter than you but to me it looks like “Hey yeah we require age verification. So, anyway…”
A token easily bypassed “verification” law to set and forget. It’s basically the same level of security corrently keeping teenage boys off of PornHub.
It’s not really easily bypassed though, if only the administrator can set the date of birth for an account. if the parent does not use the admin account for daily usage (and they shouldn’t for other reasons), then the majority of the children won’t be able to change it
I meant that the law is easily bypassed, for example by not implementing what you described. Good point nonetheless.
It’s been that way for a very long time.
California leading the way? Have you been under a rock? It even says this in the article…
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods
Get people used to a mild form of age verification. Next step, full ID upload.
Final step: Drink verification cans before you can boot your PC.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Colorado Dems pushing a similar law rn.
Fucking idiots.
njordomir@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Do you know if any organizations are coming out against it? I’ve been looking for a place to plug in. These people aren’t my representatives, but I know people in their districts and I’m curious why now? Who asked them to do this? Why did they think during the unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state was an appropriate time to propose something like this. There are only two sponsors. I looked through other legislation they cosponsored and some of it was good, some of it was garbage, but this was among the worst. I’ll try calling their numbers and send an email.