Didn’t hear anything about it in Brazil. It’s being done under the radar. Can’t even find articles about it.
Comment on MidnightBSD Bans Users in Brazil and California, Warns More Regions Could Follow
Archr@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
exasperated sigh I don’t want to get too deep in it with people again. Here is a link to the California law and some clarifications. (I cannot speak for the Brazilian law as I am not from Brazil)
…legislature.ca.gov/…/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_i…
- The law does not require ID verifications it only required that a parent indicate the age of their child when setting up their account.
- The law’s definition for operating system provider includes “general purpose computing device” so no, your toaster, microwave, and fridge are not included. (please remember that legal definitions do not always match how we would use the term in everyday conversation)
- An “accessible interface” is not well defined here. But it could be as simple as a system call rather than a REST API call. Similar to open file or malloc. (this means no centralized government server storing the data)
I have said this in other posts, but the linux community sticking their heads in the sand and pretending these states don’t exist just leave MS, Google, and Apple to decide how this is implemented. I am glad some distro maintainers are taking this seriously and looking at what is the minimum they would need to implement to comply with the law.
To be clear I do not support this law. The definitions are written so loosely that it leaves much of it up to interpretation. It is clear that they did not meet with anyone in the industry before voting.
obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 19 hours ago
curiousfurbytes@programming.dev 12 hours ago
Same here, didn’t hear a thing about this, I was actually kinda confused when I opened the article.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 20 hours ago
That does mean (by legal definitions in California) your toaster, microwave and fridge.
And really the choice of “pulling” support from areas with issue laws is the way, this law is not enforceable as written and is likely the easiest way for any OS to avoid legal issues. Just putting in a line that the OS is not supported in the state will not stop the OS being used but will stop legal issues from said state.
TrippinMallard@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
people put doom on microwaves
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 19 hours ago
Well its stupid broad, but I don’t think they can even pretend to do things to non commercial products (as in not a product). I think this will just end up like the cancer warnings, companies will just put the label on everything.
Archr@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I’m sorry I am really not seeing what you are referencing from your link. This appears to be a link to the state administration manual which deals with how departments in the state of California operate.
This does not appear to be a law especially when you look at the procedure for revising the SAM.
Ie. Not assembly members.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 19 hours ago
OR instead of having to collect that info at all you just put “OS not for cali” on the user agreement and just not deal with the risk.
Archr@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
You are right. I have no additional response to this that would not make me sound like an asshole.