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

thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• frongt@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s because the goal is surveillance

  source

  • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But who the fuck is actually introducing these bills? Which entity/organisation/individual/company are they getting the ideas from?

    source

    • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Palantir

      source

      • richardwallass@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        The dark side

        source
    • Dazed_Confused@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      There is a (conspiracy) theory that Meta lobbies this shit in order to avoid having to verify the users’ age and not being culpable in case a minor uses their service.

      source

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I buy that. It fits with literally all of Meta’s previous behavior and lobbying efforts.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        i think its THIEL’s palinitir, mostly because its already being used LEO and through flock as well.

        source
    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      THiel’s palinitir, he has been in the news ALOT lately talking about surveillance with his palinitir AI, plus its already being used by LEO.

      source
    • nforminvasion@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Thiel and the Heritage Foundation

      source
    • ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Which entity/organisation/individual/company are they getting the ideas from?

      The mainstream media.

      source
• offspec@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  An “I am an adult” checkbox in your OS that gets propagated out is probably the most privacy centric way to lock down kid accounts right?

  source

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They want to require IDs which requires validation, which requires a central authority. Any websites you hit that require the check will request it from the OS which will need to verify with central authority. So they’ll know what websites your hitting.

    source

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yup, the REAL goal here is to get an ID associated with an IP address to remove your anonymity from the web.

      source

      • Auth@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Governments already have an ID associated with an IP. There is no ISP that im aware of that lets you register anonymously.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • how_we_burned@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yup, the REAL goal here is to get an ID associated with an IP address to remove your anonymity from the web.

        Maybe I’m not technical enough but I believe there is some sort of fingerprint at the OS level that they can obtain that in turn they want to map to your identity, thus even if you’re using tor/vpns to mask your IP, you’re still identifiable.

        source
    • offspec@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This is different than the legislation being pushed in CA then, sorry it’s hard to keep up with the global enshittification of everything

      source
• Panthenetrunner@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  People responding to this are right about their actual intentions, but yeah. I think if you wanted to go about doing this the right way it would be an “I’m an adult” or a “this device is primarily used by a child” checkmark that could be locked down behind an administrative password.

  That’s it. That’s all you really need if your intention was actually just makeing sure kids couldn’t wander into a part of the internet not made for them. Everything else, verification, that’s just surveillance bullshit being bolted on top.

  source

  • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But that is effectively what this bill does, just rather than a check box it is a date entry. There is no verification requirement. Only indication (attestation).

    source

    • Panthenetrunner@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Respectfully I disagree. What I’m describing here is a checkmark. It’s a flag that gets turned on presumably by a parent and turned off presumably when the kid comes of age or gets their own computer or whatever. There is no date attached. There’s no personally identifiable information that your operating system is collecting and distributeing without your knowledge. At worst it’d allow people to be sorted into above and below certain ages, that’s it.

      I get that what’s being proposed does not require verification (for now, way things are going I don’t necessarily expect that to stick). But even if your assuming good intent on the part of these law makers and corporations I still believe entering a date is too much of an invasion of privacy. If this is something we have to do (which I don’t believe it is but idiots seem to be forcing the issue) then it should be done with the least amout of data possible. That means a yea or nay on a binary checkbox.

      source

      • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Just to clarify the law does not allow your os to transmit your dob. Only your age bracket.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• billwashere@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Greed and control.

  source