This is just the slippery slope argument.
The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.
Comment on System76 tries to talk Colorado down over OS age checks
TeddE@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoFrom 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.
Archr@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
RandallFlagg@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
Archr@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
0x0@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Are you pre or post 9/11? It is very obvious that the slope is slippery.
sudoer777@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy.
What do you think their intentions are, and why?
RandallFlagg@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
no, i cant provide and sources because that’s just what i’m assuming will happen. don’t get me wrong, it is totally fair to ask for hard evidence of these claims, and the fact is, right now, that doesn’t exist.
but just based on my past experience with how the government likes to do things and hypothetically putting myself in their shoes, that’s my, we’ll call it “hypothesis”, on what’s gonna happen. my belief is that, at the end of the day, the government and big tech want’s to collect as much information about the public as they possibly can, and this is the order of operations that they are going to take to achieve that.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Non-fallacious forms can also exist. It is fairly obvious that it is warranted in authoritarian regimes to expect progression (regression?).
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks 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
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 weeks 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.