AB 1856 excludes open-source operating systems from the upcoming Digital Age Assurance Act.
  • 4am ( 4am@lemmy.zip ) 
    69·
    1 month ago

    Linux locked out of age-gated services because it doesn’t have the necessary verification features and adoption stifles in 3…2…

    But seriously do you think it’s really a good thing that the country seems to be moving forward with requiring ID to be online, and suddenly they’re like “oh pff Linux? Yeah don’t worry about that shit, it can be exempt whatever” like that makes it for Special Boys who can Keep Their Freedom and Tendies?

    No man, it’ll be DRM’d off the internet. They’ll keep using it for servers since servers don’t need to verify their age to clients. This feels like an attempt to kill Linux on the desktop.

    The correct thing would be to not have this law at all.

      • thingsiplay ( thingsiplay@lemmy.ml ) 
        13·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, that was misunderstood. I said or meant “they was fighting against the law, so they can make an exemption”. To make it clear, the linked article from System76 goes into more detail. I just wanted bring attention to this, because the original linked article on tomshardware does not mention them.

    • vas ( vas@lemmy.ml ) 
      2·
      1 month ago

      According to this website https://github.com/BryanLunduke/DoesItAgeVerify

      System76 also planned to implement age verification should the law pass. They did not claim that they’ll relocate or re-register their company legally, or request their users upon installation to not use the OS in California/Colorado, or anything like that actually.

      I think that’s noteworthy. I personally consider it half a fight. Like, you create noise, but if boss says it’s OK, you say “OK, you’re the boss after all”.

      • vas ( vas@lemmy.ml ) 
        2·
        1 month ago

        Also makes System76’s standing a little bit weaker in my eyes. Still *obviously* among the good forces, but they nevertheless gave in to the pressure around and were ready to comply.

        … *slightly offtopic* I hate what the US / Donald Trump / Money power is doing with people and companies…

      • thingsiplay ( thingsiplay@lemmy.ml ) 
        2·
        1 month ago

        I mean they live and work there, and all business and contracts are done there. This is not an individual who can react and just go to a different country to live on, its affecting everyone in the company and all partners. Off course they have to comply if the law goes through. I personally don’t blame them that they are prepaired for such a case, and do not downplay their work and fight because of that.

        • vas ( vas@lemmy.ml ) 
          1·
          1 month ago

          Of course it’s affecting everything. I’m not claiming that they’re evil. But either them or their positioning, seems to be somewhat weak when given pressure. They’re not standing on solid ground so to speak.

  • snrkl ( snrkl@lemmus.org ) English
    27·
    1 month ago

    Whilst this would be better than blanket age verification, I feel it’s a mediocre outcome for the wrong fight.

    Rather than taking a carve out for FOSS, the right fight is to get the online anonymity ban age verification legislation taken out completely.

    If we let ourselves be satisfied with a carve out for those of us who are technically literate enough to sidestep early implementations anyway, we let the status quo change, until eventually they will come back for FOSS with the justification:

    “well, EVERYONE ELSE submits to age verification, why should FOSS be any different?!”

    or more likely:

    “${scaryThreat} now uses FOSS to commit ${heinousCrime} against ${peopleWeSuddenlyCareAboutForPoliticalCapital} so we HAVE to protect the kids on FOSS now too!! #thoughtsAndPrayers #wontSomebodyThinkOfTheChildren”

    • HerbGrower ( HerbGrower@slrpnk.net ) 
      6·
      1 month ago

      Instead of age verification, it should be improved parental controls. Make it more obvious how to set them up. The initial boot for windows first page could be “are you setting this up for an adult or child?”, even require shops selling computers to make sure customers understand that.

      Make the parents take the responsibility they are currently somehow managing to avoid.

  • Midnitte ( Midnitte@beehaw.org ) English
    27·
    1 month ago

    Such a stupid law.

    Why is the OS responsible for verifying the age of people using Facebook or whatever?

    Imagine if it was Jim Beam’s job to verify you were over 21.

  • beamingIbex ( alb@reddthat.com ) 
    22·
    1 month ago

    I haven’t been following this particular law, but I’ve always wondered how it would have been implemented for servers.
    Even windows has a server edition I believe, if a corporation is using a windows server, would one of their IT employees have to verify it themselves?
    What about IOT operating systems, docker/podman containers, router firmware, and so on. Not sure if they address these things in the legal code or not.

    This is good news for california, I believe atleast colorado has a similar law being proposed as well. Hope they take notes from cali.

    • gandalfthewhite ( gandalfthewhite@lemmy.ml ) 
      2·
      1 month ago

      It’s fundamentally unenforceable, even if they tried to do what they’ve done to phones and not allow other OS’s to be installed, you could still get development boxes, embedded boxes, etc that by nature of being what they are could not have locked boot loaders.

    • balsoft ( balsoft@lemmy.ml ) 
      7·
      1 month ago

      The actual language in the law is “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software”. So yeah all the FOSS licenses and even some commercial ones are exempt, only the EULA-ridden shit (i.e. macOS and windows) is gonna be affected. I wonder if Google will start releasing “Chromiumbooks” with license terms that allow them to evade this law.

      • zarenki ( zarenki@lemmy.ml ) 
        6·
        1 month ago

        Google doesn’t even have a motive to try evading this. Legally mandating that they collect user IDs means that they get to collect more personal data under the guise of compliance, and can also market the increased privacy invasion as a “child safety” feature.

        ChromiumOS doesn’t need to comply, according to the current bill, but Google has no reason to ship it preinstalled on any consumer devices.