Did you guys know I was born January 1st 1901?
Shockingly, 2000-01-01 suffices.
Or to put it more bone crumblingly:
There’s no need to go back into the last millennium.“the 1900s”
: /
Holy shit.
Are we twins? I, too, was born on the first day of January in the year 1901!
I thought we were born April 20th, 1969
I was born in January 1st 1970, more credible and symbolic.
how about sept 11 1973?
That was Chile, different country.
right
Ah, im a 1975 man myself haha
Random day and month thoughthe unix zero can blow up sloppy code too. but not often. one of few dates i can remember.
I was born in Feb 4th, 1987
What the fuck? This is ridiculous and it won’t actually solve anything at all.
microslop and or palintir stink all over this, mroe than likely its the latter.
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 California law an exercise in wasting everyone’s time and money.
The law was designed this way specifically so that people won’t fight it as hard because it doesn’t provide any verification requirements. That bill would come later once the outrage over this has waned and the age gating becomes normalized in the local culture so that people just shrug off the verification requirement in the future
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.
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.
With a FOSS OS, the local systems administrator would be considered the OS provider
Would they though? I only skimmed the bill text, but I think it might be hard to determine who is the “OS provider”, who is the “store” and who the “developers” are in the case of FOSS.
It doesn’t require a numerical age but rather an “age bracket” that the user provides during setup (<13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+) which must be “made available” to the “store” and the store must have a mechanism for picking up that “age signal” (lol).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, (and ianal) but the language seems incredibly loose. I would not be surprised if this thing gets poked full of holes and worked around (if it doesn’t end up being tied up in court first.)
It would be hilarious if distros could just provide age bracketed ISO downloads for the under 18 brackets and say that the download of an ISO is part of the setup.
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 further 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.
Yep, and good luck figuring out who the “os provider” even is at that point.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, (and ianal) but the language in the bill is incredibly loose. I would not be surprised if this thing gets poked full of holes, and I’m not even that creative.
Yep. Back in the day all the MUD servers ran on Linux. I wanted to set up my own. I knew my cousin used it so I asked him about it.
He never answered my questions directly. But he did show me how to look up the answer to my question using man pages and/or search for info online.
That first install was so painful… My friend and I didn’t know how to set up the network and it turns out the tulip driver wasn’t installed by default. So we’d boot to Linux, try something to get the network working, write down the error message on a sheet of paper. Boot to windows to research the fix to the error message. Rinse and repeat until we finally got it working.
That process gave you more technical troubleshooting experience than 98% of my coworkers would ever try.
This law keeps Linux out of schools and businesses. Google and MS are “Operating System Providers” and would be the responsible parties under this law.
If a school sysadmin decides to adopt a Linux desktop for his school, that sysadmin becomes the “OS Provider”: they have full and complete control over the OS; they are fully responsible for everything that happens with it.
My point is that forcing age-gates on anything provided via such formal systems incentivizes kids to go around those systems and install themselves an OS that doesn’t do age-gating to evade it, not necessarily at school were they’re unlikely to control the hardware, but at home.
Even before this, MS and Google have used their money to create a situation were very few of the formal systems for kids to access computers, such as schools, put anything other than their OSes in front of kids, so only kids who are naturally geeks/techies might have tried Linux out on their own - those kids would always end up trying Linux out because they’re driven by curiosity and enjoyment from tinkering with Tech.
My point is for the other kids, the ones who wouldn’t try out on their computing devices any OS other than the mainstream stuff that they’ve been taught about at school: with this law California might very well just have created a strong incentive for those kids to go around those formal systems and try Linux out on hardware they control, which not all will but certainly more will that they would if there wasn’t a law in place to limit what they can do when using a mainstream OS - if there’s one thing that is common in all societies and historical times is that teenagers naturally rebel against outside control and try and find ways around it, so limiting what they can do in the officially endorsed systems will push them towards alternatives systems which won’t limit what they can do.
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.
they arent saying that windows is excluded, they are saying that windows will offer the option to enter age, linux wont and hence linux wont be an option for schools etc.
Even if Linux offers the option, school districts won’t use it. The district itself will be considered the “OS Provider” under this law, if they choose to use a FOSS OS. They have complete and total control over the OS. That makes them liable, rather than leaving that liability with Microsoft or Google.
This sort of regulation violates the first amendment right to speech, the first amendment right to free association, antitrust, and a whole shitload of really good law.
Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.
A windows sysadmin does not need to be granted the authority to alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification. Microsoft can restrict that access and maintain control over that aspect of the OS. As they will be held liable for allowing it to be disabled, they are not likely to do so.
Canonical cannot compel a similar restriction in its users and sysadmins, due to the FOSS-ness of the software. They cannot be held responsible for what that sysadmin does with their software. The sysadmin, then, becomes the OS Provider.
I honestly don’t even think the lawmakers thought this far, after reading the bill myself. I’m cautiously optimistic that this will end up in the courts, hopefully dying there.
Makes me wonder where the language came from, and who is looking to benefit. People in here are saying parents are, and there is a “parent’s rights” contingent - this is convenient red meat for them - but smells like just more anti-competitive bs, the newest attempt at regulatory capture from microslop.
Needless to say I’m disappointed to see this coming out of CA.
System 76 have very controversially committed to supporting this in Pop OS, so there would be at least one Linux option.
oh fml seriously? system 76 what the hell!??!
There is not requirement in the bill to prevent users in specific age brackets from accessing certain content or applications.
It simply defines that a method for age attestation (not verification) must exist and that the age bracket data be made available to apps and appstores.
The people who decide what age brackets can access would be the appstores and the developers.
I will concede that using the word “controls” for the OS provider could be misunderstood. What I would assume is that they are meaning control as in the person/entity that provides updates for the system. Ie, MS, Apple, Linux Foundation, Canonical, etc.
Does it even allow for user privacy protection? Nothing I’ve read of the bill suggests that an app could ask whether the user is of a fuckable class by its Epstein-list owners, and allow the user to block the prompt. Every other app has to ask for permission to use the camera, to write to certain directories, they can even be firewalled to prevent network access. The very idea that an OS must code in a form of user information that must be provided to any app, trusted or not, is a warped, Palantir-driven approach to (in)security.
Sorry it is really hard to understand what you are arguing here.
If you don’t want your info (whether you are an adult a teen or a child) to be shared with “owners of apps that are on the Epstein list”, then don’t install those apps. There is nothing in this law requiring you to download any particular app.
If an app were sending this data to a third party, like palantir, then they would be in direct violation of this law.
If you were expecting to be able to leave decisions about your personal privacy and security to any governing body then you are in for a sore awakening. You should be well aware of how privacy and security are things that we have to take personal responsibility for.
Everyone not in California: mutes California
Age verification is stupid. I wonder if anyone thought of using a captcha. Require users to solve an appropriately complex problem before they use systems that require a certain amount of intelligence.
Would be fun to embed empathy quizzes for access to social media 😄
Age verification is stupid, but it’s also not the goal.
Nearly all of the “think of the children” is really just subtext for “we want to be able to track literally everything you do”.
Yes this is true, and it’s good to remind everyone. I just had a random idea for the (rare) exception to the rule.
Yeah… no
Wow California leading the way to fascism, who woulda thunk?
Because it’s not that crazy or authoritarian and is basically what most websites already do to “verify” you age (which is to say nothing but asking you your age). But the onus is now being put on OS makers, with an additional clause to build an API for other developers to access so they also can “know” a user’s age.
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age
The photo ID requirements are what will come next.
Maybe. But it will be funny for a little bit when the data starts showing the average age of a Californian is over 200 years.
They’ll tag all the Linux users with “1 January 1970”
I am ready to believe those that allowed this law to pass were.
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?
How do you catch a wild pig? (i dont remember the source)
- Day one: leave some rotten apples on the ground.
- Day two: Lay some fencing on one side and leave some rotton apples out.
- Day three, four and five: add more fencing everyday, but just leave it lying on the ground, keep leaving out apples.
- Day six, seven, and eight: leave out apples and stand up the fences one side per day until only the gate is left.
- Day 9: Install the gate, when the pig walks in, slam it shut.
- Day 10: Eat schnitzel and/or bacon
We are the pig and they’re already standing up the fences!!!
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
Get people used to a mild form of age verification. Next step, full ID upload.
Final step: Drink verification cans before you can boot your
PC.
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?
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.
It’s not really easily bypassed though, if only the administrator can set the date of birth for an account. if the parent does not use the admin account for daily usage (and they shouldn’t for other reasons), then the majority of the children won’t be able to change it
I meant that the law is easily bypassed, for example by not implementing what you described. Good point nonetheless.
It’s been that way for a very long time.
Colorado Dems pushing a similar law rn.
Fucking idiots.
It’s just a simple DoB input, which can be local afaik
This is religious repression of TempleOS
How am I going to purify my code and my soul
No way this is enforceable
Is this only for Californians? Only Americans? Or everywhere?
No doubt in response to Europe making its choice for software open source. Expect targeted attacks on FOSS to increase
I understand why people are upset, but isn’t the operating system asking the user for age and then that age being used to get through service age gated the better path forward?
I would much rather be able to tell my computer I’m an adult and be able to go to an adult site and have it use that instead of the adult site having to handle the load of age verification. If the age is set per-user, kid profiles and parent profiles can both work to limit content for kids without impacting what the parents see. Hell, even just not having to click through those stupid steam prompts every time I look at a game with an m rating or whatever would be awesome. Especially since my account is over 18yo on its own…
You’re identifying yourself lock-step to the government to run your computer. That telemetry is now theirs. Everything you ever do on that computer is now tracked or trackable to you and stored in a giant data center, probably eventually into a trained model of you.
You look at news about protestors, you leave a scathing review about a business supporting ICE, you post anonymously on a web forum that you’re displeased with the administration, All that needs to happen in the current climate is an executive order and the next time you go to update your passport or hop on a flight, you’re being detained as a terrorist.
Giving them this all willingly is a horrible idea and they will eventually use it against you.
Parental controls already exist. There is no reason to force this invasive bullshit on us. If parents want to restrict/monitor their kids online all the tools they need to do so are already available. The government need not be involved.
The best analogy I’ve heard for this… "Parents to be doing the parenting, versus, a government doing parenting and unbeknownst apples it to everyone ". And it is speaking of widely available tools that are already available such as parental controls in routers, devices, etc.
The analogy discounts “little hackers” or minors that intentionally will break laws to get what they want; in which then no “age verification” service (made by anyone) will work in practice.
And it is speaking of widely available tools that are already available such as parental controls in routers, devices, etc.
widely available? what kind of parental controls are available in
- windows
- linux
- ungoogled android
?
Windows has Limited User account, Family Safety in the control panel, and a advanced Firewall. 3rd party Net Nanny was\is a net filtering\alerting software that had visiting-server-side support in case the kid knew how to onion route or obfuscate a url or ip.
Androids can install firewall software like PersonalDNSFilter, AdGuardDNS, or RethinkDNS (the premium version creates for you a custom dns server – no software needed.
Androids have profiles built-in, that act like windows user accounts.Pi-Hole is a hardware thing you attach to your network.
There should be plenty more.
Windows has Limited User account, Family Safety in the control panel, and a advanced Firewall. 3rd party Net Nanny was\is a net filtering\alerting software that had visiting-server-side support in case the kid knew how to onion route or obfuscate a url or ip.
limited, as in, not an administrator? that does not help much with limiting a kids computer use.
family safety only works for the microsoft edge browser, which is not at all private. and it seems it requires a microsoft account, and accepting its shitty terms of service and privacy policy.
netnanny seems to require a microsoft account too.
Androids can install firewall software like PersonalDNSFilter, AdGuardDNS, or RethinkDNS (the premium version creates for you a custom dns server – no software needed.
and they can’t be just disabled by the user of the device, right?
these and pihole… are useful but not for this. even if they can’t disable the system VPN app, the kid just enables secure DNS in either firefox or chrome, and bam! its worked around.
Correct. A (non-admistrator) user of a Android cannot disable software. This too also applies to a Windows Limited user.
Pi-Hole + packet inspection + whitelisting + switch routing = universal lockdown against every known form of data obfuscation. This is now a server machine.
switch routing? what is that? and what solution do you use for packet inspection?
