Apparently this will include Linux…

  • amorangi@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    14 days ago

    So define Operating System. Are embedded systems Operating Systems? Coz that’s going to cast a rather wide net.

    • ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      14 days ago

      Selective enforcement. Basically if they want to do shit to you they will prosecute you, otherwise they won’t bother.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      13 days ago

      I can’t wait for my microwave to ask me to take off my glasses, face the camera, and turn my head slowly from left to right.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    13 days ago

    Doesn’t even make sense. Virtually all Linux distros can function completely offline. How do you do age verification completely offline? Classic politician who doesn’t understand tech trying to look like they’re doing something to save the kids.

    • DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      The only platforms for now where this might work are Windows, macOS, iOS, and stock Android, however as Muta hypothesized, if this extends to hardware-level, a law could just mandate SecureBoot and lock out the ability to implement custom keys, and then only allow a short list of state-approved OSes to boot on the hardware, which no doubt Windows would be on that short list.

      Similarly, all non-Apple mobile devices as an extension to that could be locked exclusively to stock Android, eliminating custom ROMs like LineageOS or GrapheneOS as an option entirely, let alone mobile Linux distros.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        That seems as reasonable as suggesting they could pass a law requiring everyone to hire a govt licensed computer user in order to interact with their devices, and otherwise touching a keyboard or touchscreen would be illegal.

        It doesn’t feel like a realistic estimation of what they would actually try to do. There’s too much that is currently dependent on Linux, you’d do better to just dismantle and ban the internet.

        • DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          Another thing that could hypothetically be done given NK does this already so there’s precedent as far as this goes, is any given government could make their own Red Star OS equivalent, and then have that as the only state-approved distro

    • criss_cross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 days ago

      "(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder 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.

      Sounds like it’s a text box that enter input into. Making it completely pointless.

  • mr_noxx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    13 days ago

    No one is going to enforce this. It’s political theater, and will in no way protect children.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      13 days ago

      Easy enough to send threatening cease and desist letters to distro maintainers that may not have a penny in savings. This is a huge gift to Apple and Microsoft that probably had enough of Linux hoarding in on their market share.

      • mr_noxx@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        13 days ago

        Were that to happen, I imagine it would be a relatively simple matter to move everything out of state, or even out of the country if need be.

      • ClownStatue@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Apple and Microsoft are both rather large Linux customers. On desktop, they sell their operating systems, but both of them use a lot of Linux in the enterprise. Apple more so, but Microsoft is no slouch.

          • ClownStatue@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            I think that’s a bit different. If all desktop OSs are affected by this law, Apple is in no better or worse position than their competitors. The mach kernel that macos is built around would still be available. TBH, I’m not even sure how reliant Apple still is on the mach source. If such a law were to effectively outlaw Linux, it would have massive implications for pretty much every company with a moderate or bigger enterprise footprint.

            There’s a shirt that you could buy where a kid is asking his dad what clouds are made of. Dad replies, “Linux servers, mostly.” It’s no less true today than it was then.

            • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days ago

              It’s not the kernel, which is their own work for a long time now. It’s the userland utils, which are almost entirely taken from FreeBSD and track that project.

              Although BSD utils are updated at a glacial pace, so it probably wouldn’t be much work for Apple to do that themselves.

  • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    13 days ago

    Define “Operating System”…

    I guess my washing machine & car are also going to be “not for use in California.”

    Those Cisco switches & Broadcom DSLAMs would be tricky too … I guess the internet’s “not for use in California.”

    And the air-gapped power station control system? “not for use in California.”

    It is annoying that these laws come in (I’m also including magical thinking about encryprion backdoors for “the good guys”) without any form of real-world, practical assessment. Complete waste of tax payers money and undue stress for everyone.

    FFS.

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

      The law only specifies “computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.”

      Which is extremely vague. It appears that the intention was to just affect end user devices. Not specific purpose systems.

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Linux distributions should react by asking users to confirm they’re not in California. They’ll backpedal fast.

  • somethingDotExe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    13 days ago

    All this age verification crap. Where is the fucking parents? I get that big tech has some responsability in all this. But how about we just make the responsible choice, of not letting a 8 year old near tiktok forinstance? Oh, it is just another excuse for private survailance you say? I see, I see…

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      13 days ago

      I’m a parent and legit think that majority of parents should not have been parents and have no minimum required skill to raise a human being. It’s sad because it’s really not that hard but most people don’t think a day ahead when raising their kids and just follow a “vibe”, so spending a weekend on parental controls is an insurmountable task.

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

      Just want to clarify that nowhere in the actual law does it require verifying the age of the user. It does not require IDs or face scans.

      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

      Please read it. It is a very short law <15 minute read tbh.

      The law does exactly what you ask for. Parents setup the device and put their child’s age. If they lie or circumvent the system then the parents get fined if their child is affected by content on the internet.

    • Joelk111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      As usual, the solution is education. Parental education needs to be prioritized imo. That said, I have no idea how we would implement such a thing. Most likely better general education would help at least.

    • ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      14 days ago

      They will make exceptions for themselves. Like how none of the laws passed in the UK apply to the military, politicians, and police. Even for their own personal use.

  • mesa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    13 days ago

    Yeah I agree with the article, people will just say “Do not use in California” then…F off. OSes are VERY different all over the place.

    I dont see this as enforceable. Linux in itself is multi-user. Everyone is just going to put some bogus year for age and continue on. I also dont see websites caving and adding it all in because that would cost a metric ton and be inconvenient for everyone involved. What about server OSes? OSes that have a machine as the only user. Or embedded devices?

    It also does NOT protect Children in any way.

  • Hazel@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    13 days ago

    yeah good luck with that, lmao. this is 100% unenforceable. and even if a distro does opt to comply (ubuntu, most likely) all one has to do is jump ship to another one that’s given this law the finger.

      • aim_at_me@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        13 days ago

        I’d say it’s probably easy to investigate avenues they’d have to enforce it. Like how would they make Canonical, a British company, enforce age verification on Ubuntu, a product they give to users for free?

        There’s no contract, no transaction, no legal entity need be involved in the process.

      • Hazel@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        distros that operate out of a different state or country are under no obligation to comply, as a start.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    13 days ago

    And what about all the operating systems that already exist and are no longer maintained? Who is responsible for that. Microslop gotta update Win95 to add age verification?

    • ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 days ago

      I use DosBox to play MS-DOS games that I played as a kid, those didn’t ask you to enter any credentials whatsoever. I guess they’re illegal now.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Omg… You would have to verify every single VM. Would docker images count or not? Might be enough to push me to properly work out how to use that instead of VMs…

    • spacetff@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      Too bad that reproductive harm doesn’t work eliminating the birth of politicians

  • TiredTiger@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    13 days ago

    And are they going to require ID to verify birth dates, or is this just going to be a drop down menu? If the latter, I’m pretty sure everyone’s birth date is 1/1/1901. I’m so tired of this surveillance shit masquerading as “save the children” nonsense. I hate to say it, but this is a parenting problem and if your kids are more tech-savvy than you are, they WILL find a way around these safegaurds.