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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linux, as well as any decent system of security, operates via varying levels of trust. If I install a game on Steam, that does not get root access with permission to rewrite my kernel. Similarly, if I have banking info on my device, it doesn’t get to view that, or anything with my face or name. You can install and even run something without trusting it with your life.
If an app were sending this data to a third party, like palantir, then they would be in direct violation of this law.
We have seen time and time again that courts do not provide adequate protections for these types of data breaches. The law does not matter. At the most, software companies get slapped on the wrist, but more likely they get away with it, as “programming is hard, and it’s easier to just send everything”. It is far, far easier to assert that a malicious app is not submitting marketing, or “fuckability” information on your child if that device does not denote itself as a child’s device in the first place. That’s only possible if the law isn’t hammering the OS into openly exposing its own user data to anyone that asks for it.
Your last point about personal responsibility is an important one. It’s why, if you happen to be using an old insecure device running Windows XP, you can toy around on the web with it, but you should disconnect it from your personal network, and should not enter personal info on it. Any device software that is forced to keep an open “Would_President_47_Seek_To_Rape_This_User” flag, available to every application, is removing that option for personal responsibility.
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.
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.
The text of the bill doesn’t mention anything about being able to “alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification”. You are adding a lot of interpretation that is not written, and would have to be decided by courts. The bill only says “person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” They don’t define “control” anywhere to mean having anything to do with code or development. It could just mean administering accounts. Yes, it is a poorly written hack-job of a bill, but nothing about it is specifically carving out special treatment for servers or closed source OS’s.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
I think this might result in 3rd parties springing up as liability shields?
Sure, for a low price I’ll be your “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.
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.
Linux, as well as any decent system of security, operates via varying levels of trust. If I install a game on Steam, that does not get root access with permission to rewrite my kernel. Similarly, if I have banking info on my device, it doesn’t get to view that, or anything with my face or name. You can install and even run something without trusting it with your life.
We have seen time and time again that courts do not provide adequate protections for these types of data breaches. The law does not matter. At the most, software companies get slapped on the wrist, but more likely they get away with it, as “programming is hard, and it’s easier to just send everything”. It is far, far easier to assert that a malicious app is not submitting marketing, or “fuckability” information on your child if that device does not denote itself as a child’s device in the first place. That’s only possible if the law isn’t hammering the OS into openly exposing its own user data to anyone that asks for it.
Your last point about personal responsibility is an important one. It’s why, if you happen to be using an old insecure device running Windows XP, you can toy around on the web with it, but you should disconnect it from your personal network, and should not enter personal info on it. Any device software that is forced to keep an open “Would_President_47_Seek_To_Rape_This_User” flag, available to every application, is removing that option for personal responsibility.
Where did you get that?
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.
The text of the bill doesn’t mention anything about being able to “alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification”. You are adding a lot of interpretation that is not written, and would have to be decided by courts. The bill only says “person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” They don’t define “control” anywhere to mean having anything to do with code or development. It could just mean administering accounts. Yes, it is a poorly written hack-job of a bill, but nothing about it is specifically carving out special treatment for servers or closed source OS’s.
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.
I highly doubt it’s ever going to come into effect. We’ll see injunctions later this year.
makes sense