• treesquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “Age verifications” AKA “A complete ID and access record of all that you do on your personal electronics.” This is some seriously dystopian surveillance and control shit and it has nothing at all to do with children.

  • Zeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The whole point of the GNU/Linux operating system is for free speech. Whatever you’re trying to do California, it’s not going to happen. I refuse to run any proprietary software on my machines. It’s astounding that any porch for freedom is just gets blindly attacked by a bunch of uneducated fools. What a boring dystopia we live in…

  • sudolinuxjunkie69@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Computer code is a form of speech. It is mind-boggling to me that California wants to assert its rules over all FOSS software.

    If California is able to do this, what stops them from next requiring Arch to be bundled with ID-checking Persona as part of a mandatory GUI installation?

    Maybe Arkansas wants a mandatory “governemnt module” in Fedora to allow easy remote access?

    Perhaps Dubai would like ProxMox to ping Dubai’s government so they can create an IP registry of ProxMox users?

    And since so many developers use github, will github just ban developers who don’t comply?

    I understand that such a rule could undermine Project 2025’s objectives, but it is still a slippery slope.

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What is the point of bucketizing the actual age when anything querying it can simply note the date at which the user shifts to the next bucket to determine the exact birth date even if it never sees the exact birth date?

    Furthermore, what about a common login like on a media PC?

    What about a Steam Deck that gets shared around a household?

    This is all very dumb. Could be a lot worse but it’s still very dumb.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      18 hours ago

      One of the architects of Project 2025 confessed on secret camera that the purpose of age verification laws is a de facto porn ban.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I’m sorry but you’re using that term wrong. You mean a de jure porn ban.

        A de facto porn ban would mean that you actually couldn’t get any. And that’s just ridiculous.

        Like drugs are illegal de jure, but de facto getting weed pretty much anywhere in the world is not a challenge. Usually even easier than getting alcohol as an underage person. Not that I have experience of that in the past few decades (being underage that is).

        I mean I guess it’s “de facto” in sofar that it’s not exactly presciptively de jure illegal when it’s done like that. So in that sense you are right to use it like that, but eh. I disagree with who I was when I started writing this. No matter we’re on lemmy.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Maybe for them. But for governments in general the point is that age verification is ID verification and it means everything you do online or on any electronic device can be surveilled and tied to your real identity. And that makes political dissent a lot harder to organize without being shut down.

  • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    This bill, beginning January 1, 2027, would require, among other things related to age verification with respect to software applications, an operating system provider, as defined, to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

    I’m not sure how this is going to be enforceable. So, in essence:

    • The OS should have an accessible API that returns the age bracket of the user, presumably for the purposes of eliminating a lack of compliance on apps using children’s data for advertising. That’s not necessarily a massive problem, though I don’t like the idea of age brackets, I’d prefer it if it’s just a “Adult” vs “Child” bracket.

    • It doesn’t seem to be asking that the age be verified through some external provider, so simply stating the age of the user is enough.

    • App developers are expected to always request that information on launch/installation, which is simply not going to work because how would you enforce it for software made before this law came into effect?

    • The definition of “covered application store” is way too broad and covers basically anywhere you can download software, including things like public docker hubs or Github, so no that’s never going to work out. Apple and Google can maybe include the request for age brackets and provide that information by default as part of the SDK, but legacy software? Good luck getting WinRAR to request that information. You’ve essentially banned all software made before 2025.

    So… The OS-level stuff isn’t a huge deal, but the requirements on app developers are way too strict and would be unworkable. If I were to re-write the bill, I’d make it so the age bracket must be available at the OS level, but not required by the app developer to actually use it. I would then add more strict requirements on sites to not use children’s data for advertising, with the reasoning being that they could have asked for the age bracket from the OS at any time, and the fact that they didn’t even bother means they actually wanted to use children’s data.

    • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The bigger problem IMO is the implication that a device/OS must have a defined “account holder” that is associated with an actual person with an age. Nevermind that there isn’t any verification happening that could de-anonymize a user or be breached - as an administrator, am I responsible for ensuring users only use a specific account with the correct age identified? What about google or apple? Are devices meant for children to be locked down so that new users or accounts can’t be created to circumvent restrictions?

      This law is too vague to have any meaningful impact on child safety, and the implications behind it make future erosion of privacy far more likely.

    • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      So the “age verification” boils down to the same level of security as that pop-up on PornHub asking if I’m over 18? And Newsom wants to create a legal precedent that can open the way to mandated State-controlled malware on every electronic device in the State just for that?

      I mean, he’s a politician. He’s very aware that people can and do lie all the time. Which means that the stated goal of this legislation is very obviously not its actual goal.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    i hope people talking about him as a potential president remember this; he’s a conservative robot who doesn’t give a shit about you.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Which is orders of magnitude better than a conservative pile of goo that actively wants to inflict as much suffering on you that is humanly possible. Which is very loved by a median voter for no good reason whatsoever

      • Part4@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Between the preferences of the machinery of both parties, media ownership - including web companies, increasingly militarised police, ai + agents having the potential to effect the kind of 1980’s de-industrialisation on the middle class, and the rise of a surveillance state that would make the stasi blush, voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t going to do it any more. The lesser of two evils, both complicit in the construction of the explicit oligarchy America how has, is responsible for this.

        You might extend the fuse a bit, but that will result in a bigger bomb. If it isn’t too late already, you need to look to the likes of Sanders. Or you need a No Kings protest every day, or as often as possible. Or a permanent Occupy Washington, which I think would come at serious risk of harm for the participants. It is critical now for America’s future.

      • Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        goo is more human than robot. there’s a reason why neolibs lose elections but Trumps, Mamdanis and Bernies win, and it’s not populism, it’s ideology.

  • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 day ago

    Mandatory os-level

    Cute attempt, but libre software - as always - remains superior and impossible to control. That’s by design. Write any law you want, I can modify whatever line of code implements this stupid check, remove it, and move on.

      • Zeon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Can’t we just fork it over to something like Codeberg eventually? I know it’s a lot to move over, but with time and patience, it seems achievable.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      On a PC that isn’t so hard to do. The problem though is that online services will start requiring the os level check which itself will likely require phoning home to some service.

      Plus open software on phones and tablets is still in very early stages.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        On a PC that isn’t so hard to do. The problem though is that online services will start requiring the os level check

        Easy peasy, the browser checks the OS them reports it to the website

      • TWeaK@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Plus open software on phones and tablets is still in very early stages.

        This simply isn’t true. However your first comment about OS level checks is where the issue lies - if you don’t phone home to Google your banking app won’t work.

  • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    He can go fuck himself. “Dems are the good guys!!!” Fuck off. This isnt about protecting kids. Its about tracking, profiling and data collection. No doubt to sell to 3rd parties. Fuck all these cunts who push this shit.

      • teolan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 minutes ago

        Yes, I was talking about the blog post. I have no idea about the legal document itself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it used AI too.