I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
-
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593
I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.How does all of this happen?
@wwahammy while I agree the default answer to every invasion of privacy should always be, "fuck you, make me", I suspect this one will be enforced by the same companies that lobbied for it. So, Facebook, YouTube, streaming services, seem very likely to start blocking systems that don't report an age. I would just stop using those services (though some would be painful), but it'd be pretty disruptive for most folks, I think. Same story as DRM in Firefox.
-
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593
I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.How does all of this happen?
@wwahammy There should be some kind of free speech argument saying that you can't add restrictions for free software developers like this. (After all.... source code is very close to speech.) -
@wwahammy none of this is going to happen, not likely. Currently main Linux distros are graciously allowed to boot by Microsoft letting them use Microsoft-signed binary for the Secure Boot process. California AG could just facilitate uhm "cease of continuation" of this practice.
@isagalaev @wwahammy Every PC out there has the option to disable secure boot, and BIOSs are very rarely updated. And even if California/the US or whoever passed a law to mandate always on secure boot, why would the mostly chinese and taiwainese motherboard manufacturers oblige ?
Ofc we need to fight back against all of this shit, but the PC should remain "free" for a while longer. -
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593
I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.How does all of this happen?
@wwahammy personally if I was living in California and working on an OS I would not like to fuck around and find out.
Even winning a court case is likely to be expensive, I would expect. And even if winning is possible I wouldn’t want to gamble my life savings on it.
Obviously I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to take it seriously.
And I think it would be particularly unreasonable of me to demand that others bear the risk of non-compliance, given that it’s not me who’s getting sued. If someone who is at risk of legal consequences themselves is willing to refuse to comply, then great! But I have no right to expect that of anyone.
-
@wwahammy while I agree the default answer to every invasion of privacy should always be, "fuck you, make me", I suspect this one will be enforced by the same companies that lobbied for it. So, Facebook, YouTube, streaming services, seem very likely to start blocking systems that don't report an age. I would just stop using those services (though some would be painful), but it'd be pretty disruptive for most folks, I think. Same story as DRM in Firefox.
@swelljoe the California AG is the one who can enforce the law. It doesn't make sense for them to sue random distros.
-
@swelljoe the California AG is the one who can enforce the law. It doesn't make sense for them to sue random distros.
@wwahammy yeah, as I said, I don't think it'll be enforced by law. I think it'll be enforced by the same companies that lobbied for the law. You want to visit Facebook, YouTube, TikTok? Gotta have an OS that complies. And, they'll have the law to point at when people get angry about it. Obviously the big operating system vendors will comply, so the ostracization of open source users would suit the billionaires just fine.
-
RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593
I want everyone who says "this is the law, distros need to comply" I want you to explain a plausible set of circumstances to lead to the following:
* That the AG of California will sue a random Linux distro which has effectively no money
* Prove who the OS distributor actually is (is it the committers? Committers of what part? Their bank account with $12 in it?)
* Prove by preponderance of the evidence how many children used the OS in order to set the fines
* get a judge and jury to think this isn't a massive waste of their time
* That it isn't just a violation of the law but is a "negligent" or "intentional" violation
* all the while, the OS maker and everyone else having effectively zero knowledge of who uses it since there's no continuing relationship with users.How does all of this happen?
They will go after a larger distro or system vendor with a reputation and a modest bank balance first.
System 76 or similar so they can scare everyone else into following along with their stupid legislation.
The better short term option is to ban everyone in California (and other jurisdictions with such stupid laws) from using the OS. No sales, supply and no ongoing support. Explain clearly why.
Then go for malicious compliance in the way that Ageless Linux is presenting.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
They will go after a larger distro or system vendor with a reputation and a modest bank balance first.
System 76 or similar so they can scare everyone else into following along with their stupid legislation.
The better short term option is to ban everyone in California (and other jurisdictions with such stupid laws) from using the OS. No sales, supply and no ongoing support. Explain clearly why.
Then go for malicious compliance in the way that Ageless Linux is presenting.
@simonzerafa I would be beyond shocked if they targeted any one other than Valve. There's no gain.
But I agree on the malicious compliance plan.
-
@cy the AG of California doesn't care about Linux. It's not an issue they have ever thought about or considered.
-
@simonzerafa I would be beyond shocked if they targeted any one other than Valve. There's no gain.
But I agree on the malicious compliance plan.
Valve have already indicated they will fight. Would they take on that challenge given they have deep pockets?
Small and medium-sized first without lots of resources to fight back
