Senate Bill 26-051 reflects that pattern. The bill does not directly regulate individual websites that publish adult or otherwise restricted content. Instead, it shifts responsibility to operating system providers and app distribution infrastructure.
Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established. The provider would then generate an age bracket signal and make that signal available to developers through an application programming interface when an app is downloaded or accessed through a covered application store.
App developers, in turn, would be required to request and use that age bracket signal.
Rather than mandating that every website perform its own age verification check, the bill attempts to embed age attestation within the operating system account layer and have that classification flow through app store ecosystems.
The measure represents the latest iteration in a series of Colorado efforts that have struggled to balance child safety, privacy, feasibility and constitutional limits.
Now instead of asking to verify age, make the parents input the age bracket and you reinvented parental controls. The correct way to protect children.
It’s aight. We have Linux anyways, who cares about Windows?
Ðen ðey’ll classify linux as an 18+ þing, allowing ðem to fine to deaþ every linux website ðat doesnt comply. We still have to care about ðis because when one pillar falls, ðe rest are soon to follow.
This isn’t Reddit, don’t do some weird cult of not using specific letters
I used ðe correct letters, ðough? Just because “th” is more common doesnt mean ðe oðer letters are wrong. Also, you misphrased your arguement, saying “not” and accidentally flipping ðe meaning of what you said.
Nah I meant it as it’s written.
I’ve now changed my mind though, I thought you were doing like those “never use the letter E” weirdos, and I love the Thorn character.
You keep being awesome
Ah. Þank you for clarifying, and þank you for ðe compliment! Hope you have a great day!
Year of the Linux desktop inbound.
This is getting ridiculous.
Linux is the only reasonable choice anymore.
Not really, the microsoft asshole that coded systemd wants chips on hardware for linux just like 10/11. He’s going to help fuck linux the same way they fucked windows.
You might need help. If you’re unwilling to seek help, then at least learn to code and, you know, read the code.
Systemd is so much easier to use, absolutely was not a mistake.
Bro Poettering worked for Microsoft for four years after working for Red Hat for fourteen and then left to create Amutable, and no offense, but I don’t see his goals for Amutable to be about trying to force everyone to use his solution as much as giving groups who use massive numbers of Linux servers an option for something they can more securely lock down and ensure hasn’t been fucked with. I don’t think he’s out here building a desktop distribution and telling end-users they need it for security.
This is just FUD fearmongering, especially considering how small the company is. He isn’t forcing the entire ecosystem to adopt his ideas.
If you want to trust the pedomericans, that’s your problem.
Dude, Poettering is literally Guatemalan by birth, grew up in Brazil, and lives in Germany. Amutable is based out of fucking Berlin!
Stop reaching.
“Guys will do literally anything but
go to therapyuse systemd.”And who is he working for ? The pedomericans.
Show me who on the board of Amutable is who he is “working” for, since he’s one of the founders, and most of the people involved are European, or show me the funding for Amutable that’s coming from these “pedomericans” you claim or seriously shut the fuck up. Because none of what you’re saying makes a lick of sense.
You don’t have to like or use the tools these people create. Are you forced to use systemd? No, there are alternatives. There’s valid criticisms (of which there are many for Poettering) and then there’s whatever horseshit you’re peddling here.
Dude you sound like a Republican talking about china being behind everything. It’s time to fucking reassess and touch some fucking grass.
Linux won’t be legal in Colorado if they pass this. You’ll need an account with some age-policing, ID-reporting corporation to be able to use a computing device.
How do they imagine they could enforce this though? Presumably quite selectively, based on the user’s political leanings.
The courts should strike it down, I don’t have faith they will side with the constitution, but it’s clearly unconstititional and beyond the authority of the state as well, in the realm of interstate commerce which is explicitly given to the feds, whom can’t be trusted either obviously.
But the 1st amendment is clearly invalidating this, forcing people to identify themselves to groups that will record everything they say or do and sell it to everyone, including the government, that will chill speech, and groups will punish people for their speech.
Too bad scotus is all in on punishing people for speech though.
I don’t think it will be cut and dry on state vs federal, although if we follow trends it will get shutdown because the feds love abusing the commerce and elastic clause. And I’m not overly familiar with the Colorado constitution, but the actual text isn’t actually that invasive, it makes no requirements on data collection, it only requires for it to be obtained somehow, which could be self reporting ala parental controls, it only requires that once the data is obtained that they must provide an age bracket and only and age bracket to services that request it and only services that request it.
The very act of forcing it to be collected chills freedom of speech. Leaving it undefined how it’s done should make the law more likely to get overturned not less.
Knowing your age was collected, and is stored somewhere, connected to your computer, and that everything done on that computer can then be connected back to that positive ID, chills speech, as much as they might try to betray the bill of rights with this mealy mouthed attempt to surrender us to Tech.
Are they going to check people’s PCs at the state borders as they move in then?
Do you have any
fruitcomputers to declare?Hands over an Apple Lisa
Presumably quite selectively, based on the user’s political leanings.
Not defend Democrats too much here, but they clearly have far less of a habit of doling out enforcement based on political leanings than the Republicans, even if they do enforce things quite selectively when it comes to actual leftists while letting Nazis run around with seeming impunity.
Colorado has been a solidly Blue state since the end of the W. Bush years, and even then, it was pretty split down the middle with just over half going to Bush. It’s honestly been mostly-Blue-dominated since 1992. (Lauren Boebert notwithstanding)
Further, the two main sponsors of the bill are both Democrats. This genuinely seems to me to be another example of “heart in the right place but don’t know what the fuck they’re actually doing” which seems common for the tech illiterate and often for Democrats in general.
Once again, not saying Democrats aren’t guilty of selective enforcement, just pointing out that they’re far less likely to do so (or at least less likely to do so against conservatives, for genuine leftists it seems up for debate).
Now, that also means nothing in context to how other politicians can use this kind of legislation negatively, even if the writers and sponsors truly have the best of intentions. Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well, and way back then folks like me were saying “this seems pretty dangerous, especially if we ever have a despot take control of the country and the levers for these tools” which clearly has come to pass.
Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well,
How do you know what their intentions were?
Well, not all of them, obviously. Yet, for example, I tend to think Joe Biden actually did have good intentions considering the bulk of the PATRIOT Act was based on his prior legislation in the 90s, his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act. It’s worth noting this was in response to a wave of US homegrown right-wing white nationalist radicalism and terrorism in the 1990’s such as Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Oklahoma City Bombing would happen a month after this bill first appeared. Considering the shitstorm we’re in regarding virulent white nationalist terrorism, I kind of think back when he first wrote it that it wasn’t such a bad idea.
People who were more clearly war hawks like Hillary Clinton? Probably a lot less likely to have had great intentions.
Yet others, like Ron Wyden, who has been a consistent critic of the out of control national security state and voted against military intervention in Iraq in 2002 also voted for the PATRIOT Act. He also spent a great deal of time trying to amend the PATRIOT Act as well.
And as much as Democrats drink from the same well of corporate funding as Republicans, I wouldn’t say the majority of the party is outright evil or don’t care what happens to their constituents. Schumer obviously doesn’t give a fuck, but I also don’t think he’s actually representative of the party as a whole as much as he just has power in a party that puts seniority over merit in intraparty politics.
It’s easy to forget how much shock and terror 9/11 really did put into people which colored how quickly they foolishly signed off on the PATRIOT Act.
The left was saying that the PATRIOT Act was a bad idea from day one, just like we were with the Iraq War. People keep ignoring the left (or dismiss us as paranoid) and we keep getting proven right over and over and over again.
No shit, I was one of those people. I just don’t ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity, being out of touch, and not thinking through long-term political consequences. Once again, the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act was largely in response to white nationalist home-grown terrorism, which not having squashed that in the 90s is literally part of why we have the problems we have to day with a white nationalist government. Still didn’t make it great, but I have a lot more sympathy for its origins in that era.
Unfortunately, if left unchecked, an incompetent ally is just as destructive as a malicious adversary. If you are from Colorado and take issue with this legislation you should contact your representatives and let them know that they are being idiotic since that is the only meaningful difference between the two. Overall, we can continue giving the dems a pass because they are the lesser of the evils, or we can attempt to use what little political capital we have to make them realise their errors.
You lost all credibility early on in your first statement, to anyone living in reality paying attention, your analysis is worth nothing.
What is in the actual bill? I haven’t read any of this but if it was just a year of birth box at local signup then this could actually be pretty good. A sort of halfway between local only parental controls & age-policing, ID-reporting corporations.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
Here’s a summary, but the text of the actual bill can be gotten by clicking on “Recent Bill (PDF)”
This looks like self-reporting. ie: no third party ID snooping badness. Am I missing something?
This goes in a better direction than web sites doing it themselves, I think. The government put out an open source tool that runs locally and the browser just gets a yay/nay return code from it.
The only thing this bill seems to affect are apps. It has no provision for websites, meaning kids would still have unlimited access to adult content. If a kid wants to get around browser checks, all they have to do is either install an older browser that doesn’t use the OS verification, or find a plug-in that fakes it (and of course those will immediately come out).
Even worse, if the OS requires ALL software to acknowledge the age verification checks, what do you think that means? Everyone in Colorado is required to immediately spend thousands to buy all new versions of every program they use? And what happens to the software that is no longer updated? If you’re lucky, you can buy something completely different and spend months rebuilding all your old information into the new system? Sounds wonderful.
I think it’s pretty clear that this was written by people who are used to getting everything from the iOS store/macOS store/Microsoft store/Google Play store and have no fucking clue what using a computer that isn’t “app-based” is like.
On paper, I like this solution better than every app/site developer having to hack together (or outsource) their own age verification system. But I’m sure it opens up a ton of potential problems. And if it’s open source, someone could just fork it and make a version that always says “yes” so unfortunately it’ll never be FOSS.
Some kind of cryptographic signing of the executable could probably help with that.
Ultimately I don’t believe there can ever be a foolproof solution and the emphasis should be on client-side parental controls.
It wouldn’t even work on paper. All it would take to twist this into something dystopian is requiring cryptogtaphic attestation for the age range, and knowing lawmakers, they would justify it as a countermeasure for kids lying about their age. Expand the feature as a web API so websites can use the “easier” and “more secure” system-level age verification process and—oh look, now we can’t use important websites without a commercial operating system.
It would be like Secure Boot but worse. At least with that you can turn it off or enroll your own keys.
-
How do they secure age data?
-
How do they ensure no one who is a different age ever uses the device?
However, if a developer has clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by an age signal, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age range.
- How do they determine age other than self-reporting other than wholesale spying on user habits? What other way could they possibly glean “clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by an age signal” other than spying on a user’s device use?
- You don’t.
- Easy. The device constantly captures images of the user and checks them against the user image on file
- By scanning a government issued ID and checking against an online database with poor security.
I feel like #1 and #2 are problems whether its client side or server side. As for #3 I would lean in the direction of there being a one-time check with no persistent knowledge. Like when you flash your ID to the bartender to order a drink. A client app that scans the ID and returns the answer to the requestor.
But I don’t think there is any way to reliably implement this sort of thing. I think it should really just be left to parental control and monitoring.
I think part of the problem is there shouldn’t be a server-side to this. Because that’s opening the door to all kinds of intrusive data-collection to determine age, even if they claim it should be done “minimally.” Define “minimal.” That seems to fly in the face of “clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by an age signal” which is a direct quote from the Bill.
And as for number 3, I don’t see how no persistent knowledge could work. If the client app has read the data (“scanned the ID”) that means the client-app can now store that data anywhere the client-app has write access.
Further, it’s not like in real life when the bartender can scan the person up and down, look at the ID and make the assessment that McLovin is clearly underage.
If it’s open source it can be verified that it’s not storing the data.
And I 100% agree that software scanning an ID is an overall bad way to verify. With a CC# validation at least that shows up on my statement, but if my kid is sneaky enough to get mine out of my wallet I have no way of knowing.
-
Just think: Without legislation like this, kids will be able to see people having sex! Thus, ending their lives. Not so different from staring into the eyes of Medusa!
The amount of children exposed to sex that have died—or suffered worse consequences like early onset conservatism—may have been zero so far but the dangers are clear! We must skip right over parental involvement in child rearing and go straight to the source of the problem: Computers.
Computers have been giving everyone access to too much information for too long! We must restrict it! The first step is to get an implementation that actually works to censor information—to save the children (wink wink)—then later, we will have the tools necessary to censor whatever we want!
When glorious dictator decides that information about trans-genic mice must be erased from the Internet, we shall have the power to do so!
Hear, hear. When I was young my friends and I wanted to see the naked boobies but because the internet had not been invented we just couldn’t. It was impossible! Its not the kind of thing you find lying around!
Definitely not in ziplock bags hidden in the nearest forest to the school, put there by your older brother…
I would argue that early and excessive exposure to very misogynistic porn can be damaging to a child in that it can reinforce that misogyny and bad sexual patterns/ideas.
I would also argue that it is the job of the parent or guardian of said child to make sure the information they get online (or anywhere for that matter) is age-appropriate, and not the job of the state.
These are clearly laws that are either not well thought through or (probably more likely) intentionally limiting of every citizen’s privacy. I don’t think that even if the porn or bullying or whatever problem was as bad as they say it is that this would even be justified.
When my kids were young, but old enough that they may inadvertently stumble upon porn, I told them the truth. The truth that so few explain to their children. The truth that many adults don’t understand and many more completely forget.
Porn is fake.
It’s not real. The sounds? Acting. The breasts? Those are fake too. The perfect skin? Makeup (or airbrush).
Even “amateur” porn is fake! As soon as someone agrees to be filmed having sex it ceases to be real.
Also, let me get this straight: Your greatest fear from children being exposed to porn is they might begin to accept mysogyny‽ As in, you think porn is the most likely place kids will be exposed to it and somehow just nod their heads‽ “Oh wow, that’s totally sexist! But they’re having sex so it must be OK. I’ll try to be like that!” (Child nods head).
Or perhaps you think kids will be viewing so much porn—specifically, the mysogynistic kind—that it will somehow carve mysogyny into their minds?
This is so much like the beliefs of conservatives that try to ban books that mention LGBTQ people. Stop and think for a moment: How much porn did you view as a kid? How did that impact your life?
I seriously doubt it changed much. Unless, of course, you were reading Playboy for the articles.
We must protect little Billy from seeing tits, so he can keep laser focus on preparing for the next school shooting.
The reasoning in Australia is not about sex but cyber bullying. It’s a big problem and certainly more difficult to refute than kids watching porn.
How the fuck does age gating prevent cyber bullying? That’s not an age issue, it’s an asshole issue.
Oh wait, because it’s not about age at all but identifying individuals who think differently when the regime. Whichever regime that is.
Like those cases where the cyberbullying was coming from the children’s own fucking parents.
In that case reducing the amount of freedom the kid has is… counter-productive
It will just give more control to their parents
Protecting parent’s rights to abuse their kids is a common, if unstated, goal of laws like this.
Yes! Because cyber bullying can only happen on platforms that are designed specifically for adults. By banning children from social networks, we will have completely eliminated the problem and totally not at all created much worse problems like potentially leaking the identities of millions of people and destroying the entire concept of privacy.
(Nods head vigorously)
Fuck no.
Another aspect beyond making Linux legally dubious is this: How do they actually secure the age-data?
Age is generally two characters with a limited character set [0-9] even with an extremely well hashed and salted you’re looking at only less than 70 combinations being very likely.
There are penalties for sharing with a third party, but what if it’s trivial for a third party to exfiltrate this data?
Maybe our goverments should spend more effort to determine if it’s citizens are even just alive or dead to put a dent in the half a trillion dollars the fed govt pays out to dead citizens they dont know are dead. Then we can maybe talk about how the fuck these idionts are guna conrirm th3 age of their living citizens.
Or hey heres another thought, use this effort to design a better consumer price index which is currently a huge guess of economic status based on the most minimal of factors of the tiniest sample sizes of data.
Where did you get this from? Sounds like more of the crap from DOGE where Musk had no clue how computers work so he just assumed that everyone listed in SSI was getting automatically paid.
Sorry for the stupid question, but what would an “operating system provider” mean here? Does that mean “the organization that builds and distributes the operating system”? If so, Linux is sort of screwed in CO; even The Linux Foundation can’t act for Linux the same way Apple or Microsoft can for macOS or Windows respectively. Maybe Red Hat could, but only for their flagship distro RHEL, and the E stands for Enterprise, lest we forget.
If “operating system provider” were interpreted to mean “system administrator”, however (which is a stretch, but still), that might be a decent solution, since it has the effect of age-limiting content in an enforceable way, but keeps identity information from being centralized under a government or (single) private agency. The sysadmin for children would be parents, who are the only ones who would be providing the hardware, and that could work, especially if there was only the child’s account on the device (like a cell phone).
I dunno if the above is horribly ignorant; if so, I’m open to being more educated on the topic.
Ah, I found the official answer to my question in the definitions (definition 9):
“OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER” MEANS A PERSON THAT DEVELOPS, LICENSES, OR CONTROLS THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ON A DEVICE.
This still leaves room for ambiguity, though, especially when it comes to Linux: is the OSP the person who installs the OS (e.g. a sysadmin)? They control the operating system on that device. Or are they the individual/organization that deems what software counts as a given operating system (e.g. Microsoft or Linus)? They develop and license the operating system that happens to be on a given device. Maybe it’s both, but the context suggests the latter more strongly to me.
It also says the age will be acquired ‘upon login’, so I’m not sure how that would work with linux. More anti-tech old farts making the rules
More anti-tech old farts making the rules
Wish we could blame it on them being old, but the primary sponsors aren’t that old. Matt Ball looks late thirties, early forties at most and Amy Paschal looks late forties, early fifties at most. I couldn’t find background on their specific ages, but Matt Ball’s bio refers to still raising his children, which also implies the younger side.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
Not the OS.
The OS “provider”
Linus Torvalds ain’t gonna check my ID. And i don’t want him to, either.
Everyone was born at 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970
The os provider is the one who installs it on your computer…
>.>
Well, looks like the ‘above 18’ box was checked by the os provider on my computer, I’m good to go!
Age verification is identity verification.
Goodbye tech ownership in Colorado if this passes. We’re moving one step closer to the government issuing out thin clients that only they control.
