So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it.
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall parental controls on most things are really broken - just badly thought through - lacking integration with each other - and plain buggy.
I think that effective regulation which actually required well functioning parental controls would be a game changer.
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
And then next year or the year after they require positive proof of identification to install an OS. And Raspberry Pi s become Illegal for anyone who lacks a Certificate of Need.
What could Possibly go Wrong?
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall I'm going to disagree. Very vehemently.
This is just a foot in the door to surveillance. You of all people should know better than to defend this.
Sure it's this now, but at some point, it will become like every other system so far.
-
M mttaggart@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall So we build yet another layer for users to select Jan 1st, 1970?
Seems like an enormous waste of time.
How about parents parenting?
I agree with you building something that is easy to bypass and doesn’t require storage of PII is much better than the uploading of secure documents but in this case not making a change is also superior.
Parents adding their children to the sudoer list? Does any parent capable of this require an age verification system to assist them?
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall @dangoodin it doesn't require that *yet*.
-
@drahardja The law doesn't specify a particular implementation, it specifies only that:
- They must exist.
- There must be some documented API to get the age range.
In particular, it doesn't specify what that API is, but does specify that it must be coarse-grained (giving no more information than the four age ranges, and not giving the precise age or date of birth).
@david_chisnall So I also read the text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
I have MANY issues with how poorly defined many of the terms are in the document (e.g. is a website an “application”?), and how it still holds developers liable for verifying the provided age information (“internal clear and convincing information…that a user’s age is different”), but…
The part that to me implies implementation is that there is no leeway for the OS to *under*-report the account’s age group, e.g. reporting that a user is younger than they actually are—strictly, they are liable for civil penalties either way. This implies that the OS *must* collect the user’s date of birth and store it somewhere, and derive the age bracket from that date on a daily basis (like your algorithm says). This means that it’s not enough for a parent to set up an account as “13–16 years old” and leave it at that forever.
IMO the fact that the OS *must* collect a child’s birthdate to comply is an erosion of privacy.
-
@david_chisnall So I also read the text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
I have MANY issues with how poorly defined many of the terms are in the document (e.g. is a website an “application”?), and how it still holds developers liable for verifying the provided age information (“internal clear and convincing information…that a user’s age is different”), but…
The part that to me implies implementation is that there is no leeway for the OS to *under*-report the account’s age group, e.g. reporting that a user is younger than they actually are—strictly, they are liable for civil penalties either way. This implies that the OS *must* collect the user’s date of birth and store it somewhere, and derive the age bracket from that date on a daily basis (like your algorithm says). This means that it’s not enough for a parent to set up an account as “13–16 years old” and leave it at that forever.
IMO the fact that the OS *must* collect a child’s birthdate to comply is an erosion of privacy.
@david_chisnall In fact the text says so:
“Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder 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.”
REQUIRES is the key word here. There is no reason why a birthdate (or age, but I don’t know how an OS provider can *strictly* comply with this bill without the actual birthdate) is needed to create an adult account, but it will still be required.
Can’t wait to enter my birthdate into my Samsung Smart Fridge (it has apps, so it’s an OS, maybe, probably). Surely it won’t be abused in any other way.
Ironically, the bill says that the OS provider “shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title” but says nothing about sharing the actual birth date that I entered.
This is not a good bill.
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall That's surprisingly not that horrible.
For /now./
Still a bad precedent to set, though.
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall One problem with the law is that one section says: “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application. But another says: A developer shall 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.
It's confusing (more)
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall no, just no
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
That is a brilliantly simple, and sensible way to approach this. Let parents/guardians to set things up for their kids.
But the issue politicians will find with this approach right away is that it gives control away. We can't have that. It is governments' job to parent kids, not parents' job. -
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
What about an OS that doesn't want to or have the need to or the bandwidth
to do that ?
-
@david_chisnall One problem with the law is that one section says: “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application. But another says: A developer shall 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.
It's confusing (more)
@david_chisnall ... to add some more: I have some Java applications such as a graphics editor that lets you draw curves and can convert those into inputs for other programs. You need /bin/sh and java to run it. So is it an application or just a plug-in according to this law? The only thing in it not appropriate for a child are terms in the documentation like "principal axes" and "affine transformations". I bet the lawyers who wrote the law would have trouble with those terms too.
-
What about an OS that doesn't want to or have the need to or the bandwidth
to do that ?@pkw @david_chisnall doesn't have the bandwidth to...store a file of birthdays and run a service to allow programs to query the user's age?
-
@david_chisnall And then another state or country passes a law that requires four age ranges, or another one that requires two, but they do not map nicely to the three CA requires.
You have now replicated another timezone mess.
@lerxst @david_chisnall Yeah, like 18 is not even standard across the globe.
-
@david_chisnall In fact the text says so:
“Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder 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.”
REQUIRES is the key word here. There is no reason why a birthdate (or age, but I don’t know how an OS provider can *strictly* comply with this bill without the actual birthdate) is needed to create an adult account, but it will still be required.
Can’t wait to enter my birthdate into my Samsung Smart Fridge (it has apps, so it’s an OS, maybe, probably). Surely it won’t be abused in any other way.
Ironically, the bill says that the OS provider “shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title” but says nothing about sharing the actual birth date that I entered.
This is not a good bill.
@drahardja @david_chisnall Tizen OS - a Linux based OS by Samsung.
Hold on, need to verify my age so I can open my fridge and drink my Mountain Dew Verification can before losing access to my devices.
-
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:
- Remote attestation.
- Tamper-proof storage of the age.
- Any validation in the age.
In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.
In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:
- Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
- Add a
/etc/user_birthdaysfile (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays. - Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
- Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
- Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.
This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.
If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.
I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
@david_chisnall I posted an implmentation for Fuzix in an include file yesterday. However it will turn into a nightmare once you've got 200 conflicting jurisdictions and querying some of them in other locations is a violation of local law
-
@Lemmus @david_chisnall Well, they can pry my general purpose computing devices from my cold, dead, arthritic hands.
-
@pkw @david_chisnall doesn't have the bandwidth to...store a file of birthdays and run a service to allow programs to query the user's age?
"doesn't have the bandwidth to...store a file of birthdays and run a service to allow programs to query the user's age?"
Correct. Does not have the bandwidth or need or desire to change their OS to
do that. That was my question.
-
@david_chisnall In fact the text says so:
“Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder 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.”
REQUIRES is the key word here. There is no reason why a birthdate (or age, but I don’t know how an OS provider can *strictly* comply with this bill without the actual birthdate) is needed to create an adult account, but it will still be required.
Can’t wait to enter my birthdate into my Samsung Smart Fridge (it has apps, so it’s an OS, maybe, probably). Surely it won’t be abused in any other way.
Ironically, the bill says that the OS provider “shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title” but says nothing about sharing the actual birth date that I entered.
This is not a good bill.
There are multiple humans with the same legal name and everyone hates giving what they think is real identifying information, so to look someone up in local police databases they use the birthday to tell you apart.
