Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I see so many people making a huge deal out of linux stuff adding support for the california age thing, and I'm like.

I see so many people making a huge deal out of linux stuff adding support for the california age thing, and I'm like.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
36 Posts 16 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

    @dalias @rcombs it is my understanding that the UK Online Safety Act is this law and the UK government is very much ready to put you in jail for not following it

    exactly how they want you to comply is... i'm not sure anyone really understands that clearly, but i don't think it is a matter of debate whether the law exists.

    dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
    dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
    dalias@hachyderm.io
    wrote last edited by
    #13

    @whitequark @rcombs That law is about online service providers not operating systems you run on your computer. It's not related to this.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • dalias@hachyderm.ioD dalias@hachyderm.io

      @whitequark @rcombs Is that a serious question? There is no law that says that we as the authors of a program have to modify it to behave in a certain way. If there is, it's unconstitutional. Even if it weren't, we wouldn't comply. It's complying in advance if nobody is holding a gun to your head or putting handcuffs on your wrists. Governments do not decide what we can write.

      natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
      natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
      natanbc@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #14

      @dalias @whitequark @rcombs Brazil's law requires OSes to implement age APIs
      https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/lei/L15211.htm (^F "Application Programming Interface")

      whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • natanbc@mastodon.socialN natanbc@mastodon.social

        @dalias @whitequark @rcombs Brazil's law requires OSes to implement age APIs
        https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/lei/L15211.htm (^F "Application Programming Interface")

        whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
        whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
        whitequark@social.treehouse.systems
        wrote last edited by
        #15

        @natanbc @dalias @rcombs if this is not done, which party is the liable one?

        dalias@hachyderm.ioD natanbc@mastodon.socialN 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

          @natanbc @dalias @rcombs if this is not done, which party is the liable one?

          dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
          dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
          dalias@hachyderm.io
          wrote last edited by
          #16

          @whitequark @natanbc @rcombs This isn't an answer in terms of case law there, but in general, we have long held that writing FOSS is expression, and that while building products (physical things, preinstalled systems, maybe automated installations? etc.) out of it might be subject to laws and regulations, nobody can tell us what we can or cannot write upstream. This is a principle we should continue to fight for. If we lose it we will regret that.

          rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

            @natanbc @dalias @rcombs if this is not done, which party is the liable one?

            natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
            natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
            natanbc@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #17

            @whitequark @dalias @rcombs From my reading, the OS provider would be held liable. The law does allow a simple warning at first, but it's up to a court and intent counts, so not implementing it intentionally would likely remove that option from you (^F "Art. 35" for the relevant part)

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • dalias@hachyderm.ioD dalias@hachyderm.io

              @whitequark @natanbc @rcombs This isn't an answer in terms of case law there, but in general, we have long held that writing FOSS is expression, and that while building products (physical things, preinstalled systems, maybe automated installations? etc.) out of it might be subject to laws and regulations, nobody can tell us what we can or cannot write upstream. This is a principle we should continue to fight for. If we lose it we will regret that.

              rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
              rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
              rcombs@social.treehouse.systems
              wrote last edited by
              #18

              @dalias @whitequark @natanbc okay? but clearly a lot of downstream consumers are going to need the facility, so providing a standard (optional!) interface for it is prudent as an upstream infrastructure maintainer, to avoid obvious painful fragmentation?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                rcombs@social.treehouse.systems
                wrote last edited by
                #19

                @dalias @whitequark like, even if you *did* intend to take this to court, the correct de-risk is clearly to implement the extremely simple required API in advance, so you can roll it out quickly and not end up in contempt if the court case doesn't go your way

                whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW dalias@hachyderm.ioD 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  natanbc@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  natanbc@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #20

                  @whitequark @dalias @rcombs No idea, the law barely even mentions OSes, I doubt they ever considered anything other than Windows/macOS when writing that part of it. There's some room for arguing in court in the case of a Linux distro or similar on the basis of social purpose, but that's still lawyers and $$$

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR rcombs@social.treehouse.systems

                    @dalias @whitequark like, even if you *did* intend to take this to court, the correct de-risk is clearly to implement the extremely simple required API in advance, so you can roll it out quickly and not end up in contempt if the court case doesn't go your way

                    whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                    whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                    whitequark@social.treehouse.systems
                    wrote last edited by
                    #21

                    @rcombs @dalias also it's not "civil disobedience" if your ass is not on the line

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR rcombs@social.treehouse.systems

                      @dalias @whitequark like, even if you *did* intend to take this to court, the correct de-risk is clearly to implement the extremely simple required API in advance, so you can roll it out quickly and not end up in contempt if the court case doesn't go your way

                      dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                      dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                      dalias@hachyderm.io
                      wrote last edited by
                      #22

                      @rcombs @whitequark No, you don't get contempt for taking reasonable time to comply with a court order.

                      rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

                        @rcombs everyone knows young people will lie about their age. this enables them to lie about their age very easily. why the fuck would you put up a fuss about it

                        ladytel@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                        ladytel@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                        ladytel@masto.hackers.town
                        wrote last edited by
                        #23

                        @whitequark @rcombs I still remember the advice on the Internet was never share your real name, age, and where you live.

                        whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • ladytel@masto.hackers.townL ladytel@masto.hackers.town

                          @whitequark @rcombs I still remember the advice on the Internet was never share your real name, age, and where you live.

                          whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                          whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                          whitequark@social.treehouse.systems
                          wrote last edited by
                          #24

                          @ladytel @rcombs people can now one-shot you if you don't blur your wifi network name in every single screenshot without fault 😞

                          ship's kind of sailed now that we have these gigantic geolocated machine identifier databases

                          ladytel@masto.hackers.townL 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • whitequark@social.treehouse.systemsW whitequark@social.treehouse.systems

                            @ladytel @rcombs people can now one-shot you if you don't blur your wifi network name in every single screenshot without fault 😞

                            ship's kind of sailed now that we have these gigantic geolocated machine identifier databases

                            ladytel@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                            ladytel@masto.hackers.townL This user is from outside of this forum
                            ladytel@masto.hackers.town
                            wrote last edited by
                            #25

                            @whitequark @rcombs yeah it's a real shame 😕

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                              wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                              wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems
                              wrote last edited by
                              #26

                              @rcombs @dalias @whitequark where are these businesses related to desktop Linux that are going to be sued by the California AG and in which the AG can prove with a preponderance of the evidence the number of children affected by negligent violations? The fine depends on that.

                              rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • dalias@hachyderm.ioD dalias@hachyderm.io

                                @rcombs @whitequark No, you don't get contempt for taking reasonable time to comply with a court order.

                                rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                rcombs@social.treehouse.systems
                                wrote last edited by
                                #27

                                @dalias @whitequark you may well get the fine if the court rules against you and you'd been out of compliance the entire time without a preliminary injunction in place (and who knows if a court would grant one for this)

                                this is not risk any business should be expected to take

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems

                                  @rcombs @dalias @whitequark where are these businesses related to desktop Linux that are going to be sued by the California AG and in which the AG can prove with a preponderance of the evidence the number of children affected by negligent violations? The fine depends on that.

                                  rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  rcombs@social.treehouse.systems
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #28

                                  @wwahammy @dalias @whitequark the most obvious candidate is Valve? and I'd expect it'd be very possible to come up with cases for Canonical and perhaps Framework

                                  the preponderance of the evidence standard simply means "more likely than not", and any competent AG is going to be able to convince a judge or jury that at least a few thousand kids have probably used Steam Decks in California

                                  wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR rcombs@social.treehouse.systems

                                    @wwahammy @dalias @whitequark the most obvious candidate is Valve? and I'd expect it'd be very possible to come up with cases for Canonical and perhaps Framework

                                    the preponderance of the evidence standard simply means "more likely than not", and any competent AG is going to be able to convince a judge or jury that at least a few thousand kids have probably used Steam Decks in California

                                    wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                                    wwahammy@social.treehouse.systemsW This user is from outside of this forum
                                    wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #29

                                    @rcombs @dalias @whitequark Valve, totally agree on, they'd be screwed and I get why they'd comply.

                                    I don't see how they could plausibly count the other ones and more relevant, why would the AG of California use its limited resources to do so? It doesn't make sense.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR rcombs@social.treehouse.systems

                                      I see so many people making a huge deal out of linux stuff adding support for the california age thing, and I'm like. you know basically every online service has been required to ask for your age since 1998? this is literally just "at account creation, the device owner can set an age field. to whatever they want. and then apps can query that instead of asking themselves."
                                      you can set it to the unix epoch if you want

                                      rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                      rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                      rcombs@social.treehouse.systems
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #30

                                      I guess my takes here come down to:
                                      1. of all the age verification/declaration kerfuffles going on lately, this one is the least-invasive small potatoes imaginable
                                      2. not sure why this has to be said, but you have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand that other people die on the hill of your choice
                                      3. given that some people are going to reasonably choose not to die on this particular hill, it's entirely reasonable for upstream infrastructure maintainers to provide a trivial API surface that downstream consumers can choose to expose or not

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • rcombs@social.treehouse.systemsR rcombs@social.treehouse.systems

                                        I see so many people making a huge deal out of linux stuff adding support for the california age thing, and I'm like. you know basically every online service has been required to ask for your age since 1998? this is literally just "at account creation, the device owner can set an age field. to whatever they want. and then apps can query that instead of asking themselves."
                                        you can set it to the unix epoch if you want

                                        nasha@catgirls.technologyN This user is from outside of this forum
                                        nasha@catgirls.technologyN This user is from outside of this forum
                                        nasha@catgirls.technology
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #31
                                        @rcombs@social.treehouse.systems I've seen a hilarious take of "not every application, written by anyone, should be able to access your birth date"
                                        But that's already the case.. any application could simply already ask for it, and most people would supply it
                                        And in either case, just enter whatever you want, it doesn't have to be correct...
                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • foone@digipres.clubF foone@digipres.club

                                          @whitequark @rcombs yeah, I've been lying about my age online since I was 24!

                                          (in 1998. I was born in 1984)

                                          spider@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          spider@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                          spider@mastodon.social
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #32

                                          @foone @whitequark @rcombs I’ve been born on 1901-1-1 for a long time. Unless it was 2-2-1922 for some stupid reason. It was a bad year to be born but I’m generally of age.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups