The bill would civilly punish operating system providers (distro maintainers?) for not providing age requests at account setup or age bracket attestation to applications and applications stores; it would also punish developers who do not request this attestation (for any app regardless of what it does?).
1 Like
The angry old men can shake their fists at the sky. There is no one to turn to for compliance with these stupid bills when it comes to projects like Linux. In fact, Linux isnât even a complete operating system at all.
2 Likes
It looks like at one stage they wanted to determine whether a user is under 5 years old what is this garbage
Like would I be asked to recite the alphabet or count to 100 or something every time I want to use an app?
The side effect of all these bills though is poor kids that have to grow up under complete authoritarian mindset of âyou arenât allowed this, or arenât allowed thatâ. Not all of them may able to install Linux, or move to another operating system. Itâs terrible because then magically when they become a certain age (13 or 16 or whatever) then everything is okay.
You can tell complete fucking idiots write this rubbish. How is a telephone carrier going to know what apps you have on your phone. Why yes Iâm going to buy a boxed copy of that app and install it on my phone. Also âbroadband internet serviceâ would not know what connections you made when you were on cellular data and installed some app.
The amended thing is not any better because why would some developer in some other country care about what California has to say about things.
The more you read the worse it gets, so basically a minor turns on a device and it tells all the developers they are a minor. Like how long until pedophiles hack the app and get access to âthe signalâ, they wonât even have to hang around on things like Kik to find them anymore 
5 Likes
This is a whole issue with how governments treat minors in general. Itâs like in the US how 16 year olds are unfairly taxed without representation because they can have a job but arenât able to vote.
But the voting age will never be lowered because the people who can change that donât care. And even most 16 year olds who do care at the time stop caring the moment they turn 18, so there are very few left to advocate for minors in government.
Coupled with the fact that most people in politics get off on the idea of controlling people who have no say, and itâs no wonder the latest brand of government overreach is coming in the form of wanting to replace parents in every facet of growing up.
1 Like
Itâs simple - we ban the Linux.
To be fair, thereâs also lots of people who donât pay taxes but are allowed to vote (e.g. pensioners, unemployed people). And non-citizens also canât vote but pay taxes.
The Linux problem could be pretty easily circumvented in that they only allow âRegistered Linux OSesâ, which probably will have to be paid recurrently to get the certification as the requirements increase (because I donât think they would want to have this as an open source technology, at least not in the medium-long term). So, that we have âGood Linuxâ and âBad Linuxâ. Nothing new. It has already been done in other fields, no matter how stupidly it might get formulated. I personally donât think this one will get through, but where all these measures come from is the very alarming aspect.. exploiting the mass perception of children/teens has been done in several other cases. Is just âwhite-collarâ style, which gets more senseless as the sheer number of attempts increases. Yet, the increasing numbers attempts generates a sense of urgency, which partially helps skipping the common sense factor.
2 Likes
I donât think they are complaining lol - Iâm referring to no taxation without representation
I donât think you understand how Linux work. Linux is a kernel, and there are thousands of distributions. Some are maintained by a company and a government in that jurisdiction may be able to request age verification. But contributions to the Linux ecosystem, even by well regulated companies, are disseminated on the Internet as free software and anybody can take the code, remove the unwanted feature, and create their own version. In many other cases, there is even a company to turn to. The code has hundreds of contributors around the globe, and is or can be stored in jurisdictions where these invasive laws do not exist.
Yes, probably I donât understand that fully, although I acknowledge the notion that all what Linux is, essentially, is a kernel. Yet, neither do these people who make these laws, nor they care about it, nonetheless, they decide and make laws which may influence its practically usage in important ways. This is a bigger and more general problem of our society at large.
It doesnât even have to be called Linux or anything, for that purpose. One may simply enforce something like program, which at OS level checks the age and generates a token from it. After this, the ISPs or singular websites would be supposed to ask for this token. If you donât have it, you are blocked. If you have it, you are temporarily allowed to do the check through the websiteâs/ISPâs system itself (a double check which seems redundant, but perfectly fits with the general bureaucratic mentality of these kind of things). After this, you may be finally allowed to navigate the internet and/or use full functionality of the website, although a continuous and unrestricted connection between this OS component and the ISP/website, as you navigate, may be required depending on what is observed from your browsing behaviour and triggered occasional checks, like it happens now with Cloudflare, just as to verify your age.
So, they would not ban Linux, in the kernel sense. But it could make any Linux distribution out there, which doesnât comply internally which such measures, illegal and automatically blocked at internet or even hardware level (for instance, if one would manage to enforce the OS requirement of such checks through any hardware hard-coded components in the motherboard), which would partially defeat the reason for any Linuxâs system, as these came to be known to the majority of people.
Iâm not saying that this will happen, I donât believe so, but the possibilities to do this -like the possibilities to circumvent such measures- would all be there already. Thing is, that even if we would manage to circumvent such measures, it would make the whole process of simply using a computer and reading a thing or two on the internet, an even more cumbersome and tedious process than already is, if oneâs intent is to stay somewhat âprivateâ and reduce the fingerprints which, one way or another, are left every where.
1 Like
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am signing Assembly Bill 1043, which would establish a much-needed system of age verification for users of mobile devices and computers. Parents who allow their children to be the main user of a device will be able to configure the device to inform application developers of the childâs age. This, in turn, will assist parents in ensuring that their children are downloading and using age-appropriate applications.
Streaming services and video game developers contend that this billâs framework, while well-suited to traditional software applications, does not fit their respective products. Many of these companies have existing age verification systems in place, addressing complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family and user profiles utilized across multiple devices. As this bill does not take effect until January 1, 2027, I urge the Legislature to enact legislation in 2026 to address these particular concerns.
Sincerely,
Gavin Newsom
He seems to think the owner of the device will have the choice of whether to send this data to applications, but the bill seems to pretty unambiguously say otherwise:
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 userâs 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.
[emphasis mine]
Is my understanding accurate?
- The bill mandates an additional DOB field for OS accounts, which users presumably self-report during account setup
- The intended process is for a parent to create an account for their child, with the childâs account presumably lacking permission to modify the DOB field
- An API is developed to retrieve the DOB field value and determine if the user is 18 or older. This information is then used by software developers.
I think this approach is way better for privacy than current online age verification methods.
But, since this is a state bill, I donât see why OS developers located elsewhere would adhere to it.
1 Like
Youâd be surprised. A state bill is enough to have warnings on products shipped worldwide. Iâm thinking about the Californiaâs Proposition 65:
Yes.
I wonder if this will finally inspire Apple to enable multiple user accounts on i(Pad)OS too.
The information is required to be requested by developers, under threat of civil punishment:
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.
So, even a calculator app must collect information about your age bracket; we canât have the children writing 5138008 on there.
It is just another API that increases the amount of entropy we produce on the internet, to soon be used for the purpose of tracking us as always. Which includes the binary choice of âOS does/does not provide age bracketâ.
Good luck enforcing this idiotic law on Linux. Suck it, California.
1 Like
I heard you downloaded an illegal Linux distro⌠see you in San Quentin