US government in 1996: strong encryption is a munition and you can go to prison for years if you export

[wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems]

And to be clear, I'm old enough to remember when strong encryption was a munitions, I'm speaking about these actions from first hand and near-first hand knowledge

[madewokherd@computerfairi.es]

@wwahammy To me, age verification means someone actually checks. AFAICT this leaves it entirely up to whoever configures/admins the device. Which still sucks, but I feel like this puts it more on par with the thing where websites ask for your birthdate and all it does is teach kids to lie about their birthdates.

Strategically, I'm not sure where I should fall on this, because while it's just as ineffective and misguided, it avoids some of the worst harms and might displace more harmful laws.

[dogiedog64@app.wafrn.net]

They can pry my age data from my fucking corpse at this rate. I ain't giving it up for this shit. Fuck 'em.

[wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems]

@dogiedog64 I agree. But no Linux desktop user should ever be asked that and have it used against them to use Linux.

[aslakr@mastodon.social]

@wwahammy There where books with source code https://www.amazon.com/PGP-Internals-Philip-R-Zimmermann/dp/0262240394 to circumvent export restrictions.

[n_dimension@infosec.exchange]

@wwahammy

NAME AND SHAME
These so called "#FOSS" developers

[sidawson@mas.to]

@wwahammy That was the one tattoo I've seriously considered getting.

[sidawson@mas.to]

@wwahammy This seems VERY suspicious, to me. (see, eg those doge asshole kids)

[r0k@mastodon.social]

@wwahammy I still don't understand how the flawed assumptions are supposed to be handled. And they're basic. What age is a web server OS install going to enter when they have no direct human user, just system accounts? What age is expected to be entered for multi-user systems, especially when users have differing ages? None of this makes sense.

[wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems]

@r0k the dipshit governor brought some of this up when he signed the bill. No one has a fucking clue, it it will have to be amended which everything I've heard is that it will be. And there's still going to be many lawsuits.

[r0k@mastodon.social]

@wwahammy yeah, I don't understand the concept of signing a bill into law while saying it needs to be amended before the law goes into effect. That's the kind of thing you do while it's a bill before it turns into law. They're all inept and Meta is pulling the strings.

(www.reddit.com)

[wwahammy@social.treehouse.systems]

@r0k in the totally craven sense, the law passed unanimously so there's no gain for him to veto the law and get attacked for "not protecting the kids!" if it's just going to go into effect anyways.

I don't agree with his decision but that's probably why.

[dvshkn@social.treehouse.systems]

@wwahammy the old encryption export controls are exactly what this age verification stuff made me think of too

[arakin@meow.social]

@sidawson @wwahammy my Canadian University's Computer Club had t-shirts made

[kangaroo@infosec.exchange]

@wwahammy ffffuck no to this

[revk@toot.me.uk]

@wwahammy I still want to know what age one should put for “root”?

[pointlessone@status.pointless.one]

@wwahammy are any of the devs even in California?

I remember illegal numbers (it was not that long ago actually) when people went out of their way to meme in the face of law.

[primo@donphan.social]

@wwahammy wait, like actual war material?

[silverwizard@convenient.email]

@n_dimension @wwahammy github.com/systemd/systemd/pul… it's really bad

[monokeros@tech.lgbt]

@wwahammy My signed copy of Applied Crypto agrees with you