• carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Since people aren’t reading the article and the headline is misleading. The law requires:

    • The OS ask the user their date of birth on account creation (kinda like the Steam date of birth prompts)
    • The OS provide an API that returns which of four age brackets the user fits in
    • Companies notified by the OS that the user is under age may be liable

    It was explicitly written by the authors not to mandate ID or facial recognition checks. You can lie about your date of birth. This basically creates a standard set of parental controls for parents configuring kids devices.

    I think that this might actually help with the whole discord facial recognition issue in places other than the UK by allowing them to offload the issue to parents setting up devices rather than collecting kids biometrics.

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 days ago

    That would be a completely unworkable law since devices may not even have internet connectivity, or a user interface. And even if they did, it would have a chilling effect on software development in California.

  • Digit@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 days ago

    No biggie. I got ready for this in minutes after hearing about it.

    #!/usr/bin/env fish
    read -P "Are you old enough?  (yes/no)  " input
    if test "$input" = "yes" -o "$input" = "Yes"
    echo "Proceeding..."
    else
    echo "You are not old enough.  Exiting." 
    exit 1
    end
    

    … What? … Why are you all looking at me like that?

  • anadrark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Even if they could enforce it which I highly doubt, this law is clearly a “Fuck you and your free software”.

    Like if a “too young” user have the skills to update the OS to change or even remove the age verification, who will be responsible? Yeah I don’t know either, but both will be bad.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    269
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days 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.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Whose age do they want on the server? The admins? Whoever staged it? Lol. Sure. Jan 1 1970.

      Do I need to put my birthdate onto my firewalls?

      Ooh are all enterprise firewalls going to start coming with CISA filters pre-enabled? Gotta protect those kids!

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          Glock is a type of gun.

          A Glock, on its own, is not illegal.

          Lots of aftermarket Glock accessories exist, all of which are legal.

          However, certain combinations of Glock and accessories are not.

          That’s not Glocks problem.

            • TotalCourage007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Because these scumbag companies are essentially running business like mafia thugs. Every OS is just linux with DRM if you dig deep enough.

            • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              If the only server OS legally capable of running in CA is Microsoft’s - be it Windows, or their particular spin of Linux - guess who’s gonna sop up all that government contract money?

                • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  Wow, I’ve really got to spell it out for you, huh? Azure Linux will not be exempt - Microsoft will add the required routines to it, and if they are the only ones to do so, then they soak up the server market in CA.

                  ETA: I doubt that will wind up being the case as other commercial vendors will not want to be left behind, but we were discussing the theoretics.

      • Willoughby@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        “We’re every datacenter in Canada e Mexico and we collectively and politely agreed it’s a good move as well.”

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 days 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?

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days 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.

      • Broken@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Exactly. Today you can enter Jan 1 1800 and it will take it. That’s not the problem.

        The real problem is the precedence it sets. An asinine rule gets passed and companies adhere to it, meaning they are enforcers.

        Tomorrow when laws require real verification, like ID scan then they’ve already agreed to be the gate keeper for said asinine laws. It’s harder to back out at that point.

        It’s all surveillance and it should be stopped.

      • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        There is nothing that’s “needed”. Its an OS not some demonic construct. It should also be noted that teens will be impacted in it as well - all minors. All this age gating, discriminatory behaviour is eating us alive. Age verification should not exist at all.

  • sicktriple@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    232
    ·
    8 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      160
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        They don’t understand technology

        Considering most said technology was built by boomers… yeah sure, buddy.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          You’re confusing GenX with Boomers - the explosion in Tech was in the 90s, not the 70s.

          Even then, most GenX weren’t involved in Tech since when they learned how to use it, it wasn’t yet normalized and widespread, so only really people who found such things interesting went for it and generally the personality type of those attracted to power over others is almost the opposite of the personality type of those attracted to solving problem which are expressed in strict and complex logical structures (for example programming languages or electronics designs).

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            You’re confusing GenX with Boomers - the explosion in Tech was in the 90s, not the 70s.

            Indeed it “exploded” in the 90s but was established in the 60s.
            Personality types seem to be spot on.
            Regardless, shoehorning whole generations is just… unproductive. Unless you’re claming GenXers are cool, then you’re correct.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Does anyone actually know what the fuck we are doing here?

      Obviously not, no.

      You’re a sysadmin… you should know this.

      You’re the person who has to actually think through the results of other people’s decisions.

      That’s your job, lol.

      Other people get paid to make decisions, not think about them.

      • poopsmith@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Other people get paid to make decisions, not think about them.

        And ofc they don’t suffer any consequences for making bad decisions.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Precisely, shit trickles downward, that’s how the economy/society works!

          EDIT: Swear to god I didn’t even read your username before saying that.

          So, goddamnit poopsmith, you as well should know this!

          That’s your job lol!

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        cool, then neither is my desktop pc. i get all my software on 5 1/4" floppies.

            • despoticruin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              I forgot to include nm and wpa supplicant to my arch install before I committed it to disk and am now stuck installing everything from offline pacman caches carried to my via local homeless people in the form of random USB sticks found in parking lots. Prove me wrong.

      • dondelelcaro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days 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.

        • njordomir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Definitely broad and “just trust us bro” energy.

          I’m looking for orgs fighting the Colorado one. I got “replaced” by AI recently, so I have all the time in the world to write letters, make calls, and go to town halls. I just don’t want to do it alone.

    • Attacker94@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days 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.

  • ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    8 days ago

    uhhh. So would I need to get everyone who uses the household pc to verify age? Whats stopping a child from using the family pc that was age verified by an adult?

      • boatswain@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        They explicitly don’t:

        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. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who authored the bill, said this “avoids constitutional concerns by focusing strictly on age assurance, not content moderation,” in a press release. The bill passed both chambers unanimously, 76-0 in the Assembly and 38-0 in the Senate.">

        • orange_narange@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          I mean, the point is not to protect the children, they are looking for ways to control data. The more barriers the better

  • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days 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.

    If this is who wins the primary, we are done. We’re basically already done, for sure, but him winning the primary would be the final nail in the coffin.

      • VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days 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

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    7 days ago

    Our president is fucking children, and you’re telling me I gotta verify my date of birth to run Linux, in the name of “Protecting the Children”?

    Get the fuck outta here.

      • njordomir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Do you know if any organizations are coming out against it? I’ve been looking for a place to plug in. These people aren’t my representatives, but I know people in their districts and I’m curious why now? Who asked them to do this? Why did they think during the unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state was an appropriate time to propose something like this. There are only two sponsors. I looked through other legislation they cosponsored and some of it was good, some of it was garbage, but this was among the worst. I’ll try calling their numbers and send an email.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days 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.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          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

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      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

      • BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s more than that. Go read the bill, particularly section 1798.501.b, 1798.502.a and b. Every developer of every application that can be downloaded from every package system MUST request your age bracket every time it is downloaded. And possibly every time it is launched. Basic utilities like ‘ls’ and ‘cat’, that pong example I pushed as a test, everything.

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        8 days 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?

        • njordomir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          How do you catch a wild pig? (i dont remember the source)

          1. Day one: leave some rotten apples on the ground.
          2. Day two: Lay some fencing on one side and leave some rotton apples out.
          3. Day three, four and five: add more fencing everyday, but just leave it lying on the ground, keep leaving out apples.
          4. Day six, seven, and eight: leave out apples and stand up the fences one side per day until only the gate is left.
          5. Day 9: Install the gate, when the pig walks in, slam it shut.
          6. Day 10: Eat schnitzel and/or bacon

          We are the pig and they’re already standing up the fences!!!

    • kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days 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

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    8 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because this isn’t about parenting or children, it’s about a creeping surveillance state

    • Archr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      … That is literally what this law does.

      When a parent creates the account for their child they specify the age. If the parent decides to lie or circumvent the system and it affects their child then they would be fined.

      Just to be clear the law itself says absolutely nothing about actually verifying the age.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        It also makes it mandatory to include this feature in every OS. It means you’ll be sending telemetry about who you are to anyone that wants it and you don’t have a choice. Fuck that. I don’t have kids, there’s no reason I should have to use an OS with this shit.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          The law actually has a specific provision preventing both os providers and developers from sending your information to whoever they want.

          And the OS is only allowed to send the minimum information that is required. Ie. your age bracket.

          Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Laws don’t prevent anything unless they are enforced. If the bill doesn’t also include how this will all be audited and incredibly harsh penalties for violating it that part might as well be toilet paper. I don’t care how minimal the data I’m sending them is. I want that amount to be 0. It doesn’t benefit me to give them anything so I shouldn’t be forced to do it.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Wake me when that actually leads to enforcement penalties. This law is vague enough as it is, no company is going to get slammed for “accidentally” skipping a user permission check, and having their FunPad app offer up your age info to one of Palantir’s long fingers.