Comment on System76 tries to talk Colorado down over OS age checks

buddascrayon@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Palantir

  We have unique digital fingerprints for everyone already pretty much, but they are not linked to official government IDs so there is still uncertainty I think over identification.

  This makes everyone’s digital fingerprint linked on a government ID. Voila, now every person in America is known by Palantir and the government at all times (more or less). Great for genocide and targeting your political opponents and voters to set up sham elections.

  It also tries to stop poors who don’t have drivers licenses in America from organizing as they can’t verify.

  source

  • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Just want to clarify something about your comment since it feels like you have not had a chance to read the law yet.

    (this is in reference to the Cali law but I am told the Colorado one is basically identical). The Cali law does not, in any way, require ID verification, it only requires that a parent attest to the age of their child when setting up an account for them.

    This is not my argument for this exact law or any of these laws. I just want to make sure we all understand what we are talking about before going for the pitchforks.

    source

    • 0x0@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Bit by bit have been common for way too long, you know that this is not the end goal

      source
• TeddE@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  From what I can tell, the ‘age’ part is misdirection. They want to restrict computer use to the “good” people, to make it “safer”.

  Using age restrictions first allows legislation to be passed “for the children” using the idea of potential harm to theoretical children. However, in practice, legislators expect the implementation of the age check to be capable of checking anything else they want to about your identity, as a prerequisite for access. Probably using a combination of face scans and ID scans.

  source

  • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This is just the slippery slope argument.

    The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.

    source

    • RandallFlagg@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      California, as of today, does not require any kind of verification to install an OS (how it’s always been).

      This law gets passed, now they require “attestation”.

      A year or two from now, they’re gonna push for for actual age verification.

      A year or two after that, the government will make a new law saying that your drivers license is no longer a valid form of identification, they’re gonna need a retina scan or some other form of “bio” identification.

      Next thing you know, you’ll be pressing your dick imprint on your PC’s automated Cock-Scanner-v4 encryption tray that pops out of your laptop like a cd-rom drive every time you need to check your email.

      Slippery slope, indeed.

      source

      • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn’t disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I don’t even understand what good this is. what does this do for them? The government has a database of identities and now it’s going to have a database of identities with computers? for what

    source

    • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You arent going deep enough. Its about building a web of all of your online identities to crush dissent and influence public opinion. Susie frequents anarchist.nexus under the user the_cloaked and there she seems to interact with another user, lilanarkiddy, a lot. Steven’s windows computer also reported that he frequents the site, under the user lilarnarkiddy. And you see where that will lead to.

      source