- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- privacy@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- privacy@programming.dev
AB-1043 “Age verification signals: software applications and online services.”
Text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
Other info https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
California AB 1043 signed. Mandatory os-level, device-level, app store, and even developer-required age verification for all computing devices.
Edit: altered title from “ID check” to “Age Verification check”
You must log in or # to comment.
“Age verifications” AKA “A complete ID and access record of all that you do on your personal electronics.” This is some seriously dystopian surveillance and control shit and it has nothing at all to do with children.
Why do I need to show my ID to install Gentoo?
Because how can Persona (and the government) know who is using Gentoo without an ID requirement? What is someone doesn’t use javascript when browsing the internet?
Easy, their next target will be business and browser.
I’d like to see them try. Is it during installation or download?
Oops, forgot to compile that module. Oh well.
The whole point of the GNU/Linux operating system is for free speech. Whatever you’re trying to do California, it’s not going to happen. I refuse to run any proprietary software on my machines. It’s astounding that any porch for freedom is just gets blindly attacked by a bunch of uneducated fools. What a boring dystopia we live in…
Computer code is a form of speech. It is mind-boggling to me that California wants to assert its rules over all FOSS software.
If California is able to do this, what stops them from next requiring Arch to be bundled with ID-checking Persona as part of a mandatory GUI installation?
Maybe Arkansas wants a mandatory “governemnt module” in Fedora to allow easy remote access?
Perhaps Dubai would like ProxMox to ping Dubai’s government so they can create an IP registry of ProxMox users?
And since so many developers use github, will github just ban developers who don’t comply?
I understand that such a rule could undermine Project 2025’s objectives, but it is still a slippery slope.
Take it from a Brit… It’s not about the children. It’s never about the children.
One of the architects of Project 2025 confessed on secret camera that the purpose of age verification laws is a de facto porn ban.
I’m sorry but you’re using that term wrong. You mean a de jure porn ban.
A de facto porn ban would mean that you actually couldn’t get any. And that’s just ridiculous.
Like drugs are illegal de jure, but de facto getting weed pretty much anywhere in the world is not a challenge. Usually even easier than getting alcohol as an underage person. Not that I have experience of that in the past few decades (being underage that is).
I mean I guess it’s “de facto” in sofar that it’s not exactly presciptively de jure illegal when it’s done like that. So in that sense you are right to use it like that, but eh. I disagree with who I was when I started writing this. No matter we’re on lemmy.
Maybe for them. But for governments in general the point is that age verification is ID verification and it means everything you do online or on any electronic device can be surveilled and tied to your real identity. And that makes political dissent a lot harder to organize without being shut down.
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 user’s 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. 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.
I’m not sure how this is going to be enforceable. So, in essence:
-
The OS should have an accessible API that returns the age bracket of the user, presumably for the purposes of eliminating a lack of compliance on apps using children’s data for advertising. That’s not necessarily a massive problem, though I don’t like the idea of age brackets, I’d prefer it if it’s just a “Adult” vs “Child” bracket.
-
It doesn’t seem to be asking that the age be verified through some external provider, so simply stating the age of the user is enough.
-
App developers are expected to always request that information on launch/installation, which is simply not going to work because how would you enforce it for software made before this law came into effect?
-
The definition of “covered application store” is way too broad and covers basically anywhere you can download software, including things like public docker hubs or Github, so no that’s never going to work out. Apple and Google can maybe include the request for age brackets and provide that information by default as part of the SDK, but legacy software? Good luck getting WinRAR to request that information. You’ve essentially banned all software made before 2025.
So… The OS-level stuff isn’t a huge deal, but the requirements on app developers are way too strict and would be unworkable. If I were to re-write the bill, I’d make it so the age bracket must be available at the OS level, but not required by the app developer to actually use it. I would then add more strict requirements on sites to not use children’s data for advertising, with the reasoning being that they could have asked for the age bracket from the OS at any time, and the fact that they didn’t even bother means they actually wanted to use children’s data.
The bigger problem IMO is the implication that a device/OS must have a defined “account holder” that is associated with an actual person with an age. Nevermind that there isn’t any verification happening that could de-anonymize a user or be breached - as an administrator, am I responsible for ensuring users only use a specific account with the correct age identified? What about google or apple? Are devices meant for children to be locked down so that new users or accounts can’t be created to circumvent restrictions?
This law is too vague to have any meaningful impact on child safety, and the implications behind it make future erosion of privacy far more likely.
That’s not even accounting for server racks. Servers run operating systems too, and a server doesn’t really have a ‘user’ as such. Sure there’s the admin account, but there isn’t a definitive person you can tie that to.
So the “age verification” boils down to the same level of security as that pop-up on PornHub asking if I’m over 18? And Newsom wants to create a legal precedent that can open the way to mandated State-controlled malware on every electronic device in the State just for that?
I mean, he’s a politician. He’s very aware that people can and do lie all the time. Which means that the stated goal of this legislation is very obviously not its actual goal.
-
What is the point of bucketizing the actual age when anything querying it can simply note the date at which the user shifts to the next bucket to determine the exact birth date even if it never sees the exact birth date?
Furthermore, what about a common login like on a media PC?
What about a Steam Deck that gets shared around a household?
This is all very dumb. Could be a lot worse but it’s still very dumb.
i hope people talking about him as a potential president remember this; he’s a conservative robot who doesn’t give a shit about you.
Which is orders of magnitude better than a conservative pile of goo that actively wants to inflict as much suffering on you that is humanly possible. Which is very loved by a median voter for no good reason whatsoever
goo is more human than robot. there’s a reason why neolibs lose elections but Trumps, Mamdanis and Bernies win, and it’s not populism, it’s ideology.
Bernie lost popular vote two times in a row.
Bernie won plenty of mayoral and senate elections, as well as many states during his primary campaigns.
Almost like the nominations were rigged and the media hated someone who would ruin the rich who own the media’s income.
Between the preferences of the machinery of both parties, media ownership - including web companies, increasingly militarised police, ai + agents having the potential to effect the kind of 1980’s de-industrialisation on the middle class, and the rise of a surveillance state that would make the stasi blush, voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t going to do it any more. The lesser of two evils, both complicit in the construction of the explicit oligarchy America how has, is responsible for this.
You might extend the fuse a bit, but that will result in a bigger bomb. If it isn’t too late already, you need to look to the likes of Sanders. Or you need a No Kings protest every day, or as often as possible. Or a permanent Occupy Washington, which I think would come at serious risk of harm for the participants. It is critical now for America’s future.
Coincidentally, my birthday is 1900, January 1st.
1970, Jan 1st is better for this situation
Mandatory os-level
Cute attempt, but libre software - as always - remains superior and impossible to control. That’s by design. Write any law you want, I can modify whatever line of code implements this stupid check, remove it, and move on.
You mean the libre software that is all primarily stored on AWS, Azure, or Google infrastructure, especially github?
Linux is the giant it is using email as the primary infrastructure for development. We will be fine.
Can’t we just fork it over to something like Codeberg eventually? I know it’s a lot to move over, but with time and patience, it seems achievable.
On a PC that isn’t so hard to do. The problem though is that online services will start requiring the os level check which itself will likely require phoning home to some service.
Plus open software on phones and tablets is still in very early stages.
On a PC that isn’t so hard to do. The problem though is that online services will start requiring the os level check
Easy peasy, the browser checks the OS them reports it to the website
Plus open software on phones and tablets is still in very early stages.
This simply isn’t true. However your first comment about OS level checks is where the issue lies - if you don’t phone home to Google your banking app won’t work.
Well good thing banks have websites.
He can go fuck himself. “Dems are the good guys!!!” Fuck off. This isnt about protecting kids. Its about tracking, profiling and data collection. No doubt to sell to 3rd parties. Fuck all these cunts who push this shit.
There’s no fighting 21st century fascism without breaking this law.
This is so much more effectively evil than ehat the trump admin has been doing holy shit.
This might genuinely be world leading evil.
Evil has won and has pulled up the ladder behind it to make sure no one can challenge it.
*to make sure nobody can challenge it without illegally building or stealing a ladder.
seems like MS lobbying group.
Lovely aint it?
Can’t wait for the big wigs to start sponsoring bills going after whistleblower protection.
Gavin is as slimey as his hair.
This is probably the most dystopian child safety bill so far.
Most dystopian “child safety” bill. Let’s not legitimize the claim that these laws are made to protect children while having privacy-invading side effects - they are privacy-invading laws disguised as child protection, while failing to have any real impact on children’s online safety and wellbeing
I’m not sure anything this repressive is implemented anywhere in the world.
Edit: wait this is the other half of the thing everywhere else is doing that would make this nightmare shit.
The only thing that I can think of is how China regulates it’s online gaming.
What is China’s Age Verification System?
China’s Age Verification System or 游戏适龄提示 in Chinese, is a government-mandated infrastructure that restricts minors’ access to online games and digital platforms. In China, all users must undergo “Real Name Verification” (实名认证) before accessing gaming services, enabling platforms to enforce age-appropriate restrictions automatically.
The system is overseen by the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) and integrates with national databases to verify user identities in real-time.
https://appinchina.co/blog/the-complete-guide-to-chinas-age-verification-system/
The move to do this was largely in part thanks to complaints of parents in regards to their kids’ habits with gacha games. For anyone interested, what I posted was a small excerpt from the link, there’s a lot more info on it there.
Is it in the OS?seems like just games.
It is similar, not the same. Some other key differences to consider are that while the US one is at the OS level, it’s just asking you to provide an age that isn’t linked to your ID or anything. It’s just like when a website asks your age, you can absolutely lie about it. But now it’s being done on the OS account, not the website.
Whereas, yeah, it is just for games in China, but it is absolutely being run against the person’s ID in a national database. Some games even require facial recognition. So it’s on a whole other level of verification and tracking.
while the US one is at the OS level, it’s just asking you to provide an age that isn’t linked to your ID or anything.
It’s Age Verification, which will almost certainly mean either ID scanning or facial scanning via the device camera. Or alternatively card transaction verification - the OG method baked into all these laws is the one that pays MasterCard and VISA. ID and facial recognition are cheaper services because the business providing the scan service can make more money off the ID or face they scan.
“Almost certainly,” is just you assuring it is so. Nothing in the legislation itself demands that.
The us is also openly capitalist with no other pretentions or pressures, and currently in the grip of a fascist regime.
I mean, sure? But that’s rather broad and does not really pertain to the topic at hand which is potentially (or outright) privacy-breaking legislature enacted and enforced on technology in the name of protecting childeren.
Its the difference between fucking around with a gun in the hospital parking lot with your two EMT lovers who are trying to get you to stop, and fucking around with a gun in the deep arctic with two hardened killers who want you dead.
