My birthday is 1.1.0001
California introduces age verification law for all operating systems, including Linux and SteamOS — user age verified during OS account setup
Submitted 21 hours ago by Amoxtli@thelemmy.club to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/operating-systems/california-introduces-age-verification-law
Comments
StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 10 minutes ago
7101334@lemmy.world 27 minutes ago
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, such as government-issued ID checks.
I hate Newsom but this seems like a non-issue.
Jax@sh.itjust.works 37 minutes ago
Yes but Newsom says funny things about bad orange man, so he’s got my vote.
Auth@lemmy.world 23 minutes ago
Its parents that are pushing for this stupid shit. I hate that the majority of voters want to implement robust age verification.
wuffah@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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, such as government-issued ID checks.
What even is the point of this then? To make shitty parents feel better?
daannii@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Sell data. profile people more accurately.
KillerWhale@orcas.enjoying.yachts 2 hours ago
It’s so next year when they expand the requirements the infrastructure is already in place.
Reygle@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
OK Newsom, you’ve lost me. I enjoyed your chaotic responses to the drumpf but you’ve officially lost me.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Realize, this has always been him. He is NOT a liberal. He is a conservative who calls himself a democrat.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 23 minutes ago
That’s called a liberal.
Auth@lemmy.world 31 minutes ago
He is still overwhelmingly liberal and progressive. Calling him conservative is insane.
tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
I wouldn’t even say conservative, social fascist who hates poor and trans people.
noxypaws@pawb.social 5 hours ago
Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”
then why did you fucking sign it in the first place??
words cannot describe the depths of my seething hatred for the complete, museum grade, massive piece of shit that is Gavin Newsom
BranBucket@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Because it’s a metric, a bullet point, and campaign speech fodder. Newsome thinks of his position in terms of a career rather than an office, his job isn’t to lead a nation towards what’s right or wrong, it’s to pander so that he can be re-elected or elected to higher office.
The bullshit way that lobbying groups conduct polling and market research means they he’s chronically out of touch and that his focus is on perpetuating his time in office so he can continue to “represent the people”, making a calling out of bowing to the desires of the mis-informed, outraged, panicked mob he believes his electorate to be instead of actually having a spine and exercising good judgement.
The consequences of shoddy legislation take second place to being able to declare he did something to “keep kids safe”. It doesn’t even have to work, all that matters is having something to wave around and back up that claim. Something to placate the plebeians and let him continue to do what he does best… listen to lobbyist who are lying about what people think.
Why? Because that’s what gets people elected these days. Despite being on a foundation of pure bullshit, somehow it works. So he goes along with it, encourages it, and remains in office as a result.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 7 hours ago
Why not parents responsible for their own goddamn kids? Stop interfering with the rest of our privacy for this bullshit. Parental controls have existed for decades. Fucking use them.
btsax@reddthat.com 5 hours ago
Because this isn’t about parenting or children, it’s about a creeping surveillance state
FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
The new California republic seems to be the only people who see this coming
qualia@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Effective date known yet?
aReallyCrunchyLeaf@lemmy.ml 18 hours ago
So now when I spin up a VM at my sysadmin job I have to tell the server I’m an adult? Does anyone actually know what the fuck we are doing here? What an absolute clown show.
zewm@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
This is what happens when boomers never die and stay in office for a lifetime. They don’t understand technology but are allowed to make the laws that govern their use.
a4ng3l@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Nha boomers are not the cause for this shit. Smart ass marketeers and tech bro pushing for more precise target identification and thus more reach for them are to blame. And those I stumble upon are definitely on the younger side.
0x0@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
They don’t understand technology
Considering most said technology was built by boomers… yeah sure, buddy.
MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
When can just change the laws when they leave
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
Does anyone actually know what the fuck we are doing here?
Obviously not, no.
You’re a sysadmin… you should know this.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Simple solution. From now on Linux distros should ship with a big message “NOT FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA”.
You want to force age verification? No server in all of California will run. Period.
Gigasser@lemmy.world 8 minutes ago
Supposedly the age verification thing that’s needed is the equivalent to a porn site verification. Just enter a birthday that’s in the 1800s, and you’re set. This is still a bad direction to go towards though, as it’ll set precedent for future bullshit.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
Ah, the Glock solution.
SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 18 hours ago
“My name is Microsoft, and I approved this message.”
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Microsoft’s own servers run Linux. An in-house build IIRC named Azure Linux.
Willoughby@piefed.world 11 hours ago
“We’re every datacenter in Canada and we collectively and politely agreed it’s a good move.”
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 15 hours ago
Yeah… It says just that in the article. You did read the article, right? I mean you didn’t just read the title and then rush in here to make a comment?
Bakkoda@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
How people farm internet points is serious business
fernandofig@reddthat.com 12 hours ago
Where, pray tell? Out of curiosity I went there to check it out, and the “article” is just 3 paragraphs that just barely expand on the title. Maybe uBlock is triggering some invisible paywall there for me?
Willoughby@piefed.world 11 hours ago
_you can click those?_
m3t00@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
root giggles
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
User age required to be entered. There is no verification.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 21 minutes ago
Calm down! It’s just my foot in the door!
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
Considering the massive number of servers running Linux used in the industry, this sounds like a good way to kill the Tech Industry in California.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 9 hours ago
This is a gift to Microsoft.
This law only applies to computers used by children. The law explicitly defines “users” as minors. It does not apply to machines used solely/primarily by adults. It does not apply to servers, or other machines with no local users. It won’t affect the tech industry directly.
This law effectively prohibits your children from (legally) using anything but Microsoft/Google products until they are 18.
With this law, Linux cannot be installed on a school computer. With a FOSS OS, the local systems administrator would be considered the OS provider, and would be liable under this idiot law.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Think about it this way: how do people learn enough about it to program for and admin Linux systems as adults?
Unless things changed a lot since my days (granted it was over 3 decades ago), the path to knowing all about using, administrating and programming software for running under Linux was through being able to play with it for fun as a teenager.
That said, thinking more about it, this might actually push more teenagers to try Linux out to avoid age-gating since they can just download a distro from anywhere in the World and install it in their own PC.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
System 76 have very controversially committed to supporting this in Pop OS, so there would be at least one Linux option.
HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
Where did you get that?
The law’s broad definition of an “operating system provider” […] pulls in not just Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS, but Linux distributions and Valve’s SteamOS.
Doesn’t seem like Windows is somehow excluded.
CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 15 hours ago
Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”
Then why the fuck did you sign it if it wasn’t ready and needed amendments? Is this what you’re going to do as president too?
Rhetorical, of course. Note how he doesn’t say he disagrees with the bill, just that it needed to consider family devices.
Willoughby@piefed.world 11 hours ago
You know, bankroll the bribe money, settle the details out later. Politics 101
VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
Yup. This. I’m in California and this is not even a topic. This is not even in the local news. It’s as quiet as: the bullet train project, the gigantic water pipeline for the south project, the drought solution, the power grid solutions, etc. But, boy, the amounts of money that it blew thru.
Sundiata@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
because he is a conservative dumbfucking cunt.
judge: the jury finds the defendant guilty of 9 counts of child negligence, and will serve 5 months in prison with a fine of $10,000 in damages.
prisoner: what you here for? what did you do?
father: I allowed my child to create his own account on Debian Trixie 13.3 with KDE Plasma interface.
prisoner: chuckles
_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
What the fuck? This is ridiculous and it won’t actually solve anything at all.
sol6_vi@lemmy.makearmy.io 11 hours ago
Did you guys know I was born January 1st 1901?
0x0@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
I was born in January 1st 1970, more credible and symbolic.
m3t00@lemmy.world 57 minutes ago
the unix zero can blow up sloppy code too. but not often. one of few dates i can remember.
DacoTaco@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Ah, im a 1975 man myself haha
Etterra@lemmy.org 10 hours ago
I was born January 1st, 1979 so I could feel young again.
Randelung@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Shockingly, 2000-01-01 suffices.
clif@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
“the 1900s”
: /
moonshadow@slrpnk.net 8 hours ago
I thought we were born April 20th, 1969
Sundiata@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I was born in Feb 4th, 1987
glimse@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Holy shit.
Are we twins? I, too, was born on the first day of January in the year 1901!
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 19 hours ago
How will this affect embedded os like freertos or vxworks? There are lightbulbs that have operating systems these days, am I going to have to show ID to turn on my light?
themurphy@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
My guess would be these OS’s just wont do it and stop doing business in that state.
Lucky for you, you can just download them anyway.
My guess is also that these lawmakers dont care nor considered other OS’s than Windows, MacOS, iOS and Android.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
As those are not general purpose computing devices, and additionally have no app store - no, and no.
From the law text:
© “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
lime@feddit.nu 15 hours ago
cool, then neither is my desktop pc. i get all my software on 5 1/4" floppies.
dondelelcaro@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
The law defines a public webpage as a covered app store. Anything that can run doom and view a webpage is potentially covered.
It’s way overbroad and unclear how it could be implemented, and likely to be challenged in court if it even gets that far.
Attacker94@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It all but makes the law useless, but the law characterizes viable age verification as being self reported, so the Id wouldn’t be necessary.
pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Why lawmakers are so stupid at understanding technology
Inucune@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
No way this is enforceable
tidderuuf@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Wow California leading the way to fascism, who woulda thunk?
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Colorado Dems pushing a similar law rn.
Fucking idiots.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 21 hours ago
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
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 21 hours ago
The photo ID requirements are what will come next.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
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?
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
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?
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
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.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
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
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
Get people used to a mild form of age verification. Next step, full ID upload.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
It’s been that way for a very long time.
Fokeu@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Luckily this dogshit is completely unenforceable. Doesn’t excuse the people who introduced this law, of course.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 9 hours ago
It’s hard enough trying to get Linux adoption in schools and businesses. This law makes it an additional liability.
Administrators of FOSS systems will be considered OS Providers under this law, and will be liable at $2000 to $7500 for every child they expose to a non-compliant OS.
Those few schools that have adopted Linux will be forced to switch to M$ and Google products.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
You keep saying that, but nothing about it is carved out specifically one way or the other for FOSS. As it is worded, any network sysadmin is considered the “OS Provider” exactly the same under Windows or Linux as they “control the operating system software on a computer”. They don’t “develop” or “license” the software in either case, windows or Linux. They control the OS the same amount under either windows or Linux.
Maybe it could be argued they are more likely to choose windows since the people developing and licensing the software are a big corporation and is therefore more likely to be compliant? But it isn’t like Canonical and RedHat are just some guy in a basement - these are commercial entities developing and licensing software just like Microsoft.
I agree the definitions in this bill are absolutely insane - the idea that the developer, licensor, and administrator of a computer’s OS would ever be the same person is astronomically unlikely. Maybe they mean something different by “control”, but it isn’t defined so that makes it up to the courts to decide with no direction.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
I love the definitions section… So, first it defines the 4 age brackets a user can be: Under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or over 18. Then they define “Child” as anyone under 18. Then, and this is where it gets good, they define a “User” as a “Child”. So by these definitions, no one can be considered a user if they are over 18. (which, then, why is there an “over 18” age bracket defined earlier??)
Not only do these people not seem to understand technology, they also don’t understand that people over 18 use technology, or maybe exist?
Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
This is just another charge to add when someone is accused of a crime involving computers. It doesn’t have to be a computer related crime but just be part of their property.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
For everyone trying to figure out how this would be enforced, it’s not about being proactively enforced. (and data collection is 99% of it)
It’s about adding a double-tap “Well, these people also violated our age verification law, so they have to pay a fine,” added to any incident where it’s convenient to add this in. If a minor sends another minor a snap that would trigger CP laws, and one of the phones isn’t age verified correctly, fine to the parents and hands up in the air “We tried!” A minor is involved in torrenting movies? “Look, kids using illegal OS! Fine to the parents!”
This is how laws work across a lot of corrupt developing countries. There’s laws for everything, but they only get applied selectively as authorities find they fit the situation. It’s hard to actually be 100% above board and do everything legally because of a few little things meant to be impossible to actually do bureaucratically. So in every situation, any set of authorities start in with the endemic leverage of “Well, we have suspicion of you selling ketamine out of your apartment. Did you do age verification on your laptop? No? Then we can seize that as a crime and see what’s on there. OR you can give up your supplier.”
sbbq@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
Are children not allowed to use computers now?
StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 20 hours ago
Enforcement against Linux distributions, however, is likely to be problematic. Distros like Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo have no centralized account infrastructure, with users downloading ISOs from mirrors worldwide, and can modify source code freely. These small distros lack legal teams or resources to implement the required API, so a more realistic outcome for non-compliant distros is a disclaimer that the software is not intended for use in California.
TheKaul@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
Saw someone say this on the last article I saw regarding this, but:
What’s stopping the OSes from just putting “Not for use in California” on their product/website? Seems like a simple and easy fix lol.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age
That part is good at least. It also makes the entire law an exercise in wasting everyone’s time and money.
redsand@infosec.pub 11 hours ago
This is religious repression of TempleOS
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Many people here are going off on wild tangents over this. You should just read the law, it’s only a couple thousand words of quite plain English.
Many here have taken completely incorrect assumptions from the title. **This law is for developers, not users. **
Summary:
- Requires OS devs ask for DOB, age, or both at account creation time.
- Requires an API that allows app store devs to request this age data for the account. At minimum this must specify the account is a member of one of these categories: ‘user under 13, user over 13 and under 16, user is over 16 and under 18, user is over 18’.
gasp
- Explicitly bars OS devs from sending more data than explicitly necessary to meet 1 (hint: photo ID, facial recognition).
- Explicitly bars app devs recieving the data from requesting more data from the OS nor the App store.
- Bars app stores from using the data for any other reason and specifically calls out anticompetitive practices.
- Bars app store and OS devs from sharing this data with any third party for any other reason than to comply with this law.
- Has injunctions and civil penalties of $2500 (max per user) affected by negligent violations (eg a child account is served adult content), and $7500 (max per user) affected by intentional violations.
The only problem I have with this is that it should only apply to commercial software (app stores and OS). Libre/FOS software should not have to police ages on their app stores, due to their far reduced budgets (often zero), developer time, and the nature of the software being generally anti-centralized and anti-surveillance-capitalism. Though I’d be fine with it for FOSS software distributed via commercial app stores, as long as they gave a longer lead time to implement (EG a couple of years).
Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 minute ago
Will they patch
useraddoradduserto support that?