Wait, what the shit?

[munin@infosec.exchange]

Wait, what the shit? how in the fuck did I miss -this-?

New California law will require operating systems to have age verification

Assembly Bill 1043 becomes a law in California in January 2027, and will require every operating system to have age verification in account setup.

Shacknews (www.shacknews.com)

[munin@infosec.exchange]

Newsom is a fucking hazard, I fucking swear.

[amyzenunim@unstable.systems]

@munin general purpose computing is dead. we're merely coasting until we utterly derail at this point.

[jgmitchell303@infosec.exchange]

@munin Colorado is trying to do this too - https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

[onyxraven@hachyderm.io]

@jgmitchell303 @munin yeah I have to assume this came up at some conference, we will see more states with similar verbiage

[munin@infosec.exchange]

@onyxraven @jgmitchell303

This is fucking ludicrous.

[onyxraven@hachyderm.io]

@munin @jgmitchell303 these bills that are just like ‘I dunno how this works, you figure it out’, luckily, have not done well in the past. That’s not to say those won’t stick and it’s not fucking egregious, anti-business, pro-facism shit.

[jgmitchell303@infosec.exchange]

@onyxraven @munin I plan to take some time this weekend to write emails

[rigrig@akkoma.tubul.net]

@munin@infosec.exchange Not quite the same, but reminded me of the Indiana pi bill

So yeah, now my next book to re-read will be Going Postal.

[jgmitchell303@infosec.exchange]

@onyxraven @munin

the email I sent to my legislators this morning if any one needs some words...

Dear [legislator],

My name is [name], I live in [Senate|House] District [XX] and voted for you in the last election. I am writing to urge you to oppose the Age Attestation on Computing Devices bill (SB26-051) and any similar bills that would require age attestation for an operating system or a computing device. These kinds of bills fail to solve the problem of age verification and keeping inappropriate content from those who should not be able to access it, while creating additional burdens for system providers of all kinds and the users of their products.

First, a device or operating system is not the actual user. If a minor uses the device of a person over 18 or that was mistakenly configured, that minor can access content based on the device's embedded age signal. If a person over 18 uses the device of a minor or even a device that was mistakenly configured, they may be blocked from accessing content they are legally permitted to.

Next, requiring this to apply to all devices that provide access to applications through a covered application store means that almost all smart devices and systems might be legally required to collect age data to operate. This would include things you might normally consider such as mobile phones, computers, and tablets, but would potentially cover other smart devices including refrigerators and televisions. Which by their very nature are used by individuals of all ages.

In my opinion as a cybersecurity professional this bill does not solve the age verification issue and actually provides incentives for end users to purposefully mis-configure their devices for ease of use, reducing the overall safety and security of those we are looking to protect. So I urge you to oppose the Age Attestation on Computing Devices bill (SB26-051) and any similar bills that come up in the future.

Respectfully,
[name]
[email]
[phone]