There’s the overarching matter that this is part of an global push of the “verifiability” (it’s hard to control, market to or create profiles of people that are trivially able to remain anonymous ) issue.
It’s not just a California thing.
It’s not just a Colorado thing.
It’s not even just a US thing.
And, while one could implement some sort of geo-mapping on the “feature” to constrain its impact, such an approach has limitations. Eventually, you reach a point where more jurisdictions than not are implementing requirements (or the size of the geo-mapping source becomes too unwieldy to manage and keep adequately up to date).
While truly free distros won’t need it, distros that have organizations behind them that can be sued will probably decide they need to go along to get along (lest they be hauled into court). So, RHEL, Ubuntu, OEL will likely have to make a choice on whether it’s a hill they want to die on. Further, Red Hat (IBM) and Oracle (can’t really speak to Canonical/Ubuntu or other commercial entities that are in the Linux distro game) are both in the AI market and have customers that are in the data-scraping/brokering business. They’re not wholly disinterested in making it easier for those customers to do their respective things. So, I wouldn’t count on push-back from them.
Or they could try to remind Fedora, “we give you guys a third of your funding…”
That said, RH’s baliwick is server OSes, not desktop OSes. It’s not clear whether/how any of this would even apply to a server-oriented OS (beyond “these laws are clumsily written and make no adequate distinctions, so we’re stuck adding a pointless widget”).
Well, I never implied that users should not protest. That said, I’m pretty sure corporations are going to have way more leverage here than a bunch of angry Linux nerds.
You’ve answered it yourself: no one’s leading. And without a leader most people won’t care until it’s too late.
Distros also likely don’t need more legal and development burden than they already have, and I’m convinced this bill won’t be the last of its kind. Red lines had better be drawn sooner rather than later.
If this is open for discussion I would echo the suggestion for peaceful non-compliance. Fedora, let alone any other OS, has no ethical obligation to comply with the arbitrary demands of corrupt, delusional, megalomaniacs. And if history teaches us anything, it’s that complying with their capricious demands will only serve to further inflate their hubris.
I cannot imagine the implementation of this perverse requirement ending with a net benefit to the end user. In addition, I suspect some, perhaps even a non-trivial amount of users, will leave any distribution that does comply. But I could be wrong, this is just speculation.
Class Action Suit anyone? I wish I were in a position to lead this but I’m not. Use our money to sue them and fight back. If corporations aren’t going to push back it’s only us that can fight back before it’s too late. Please someone take the lead!
Those that know me know I don’t take anything at “Face Value” and I also have a fair supply of tinfoil as well … LOL!!!
Personally, my take on these age verification laws is that they are completely unenforceable ultra liberal feel-good moves for no other purpose except to appease adult idiots with children they don’t want to raise responsibly. Thankfully, engineers and scientists like us can just continue to let them eat their own stupidity by making certain they are subject to the same stupidity they are forcing on the rest of us.
Here is my thought on that: Some species of age verification is coming everywhere, like it or not. (U.S. Federal is in the works.) And at some point it become impractical to avoid it, at least if you want access to the modern internet.
It is always better to set the standard than to have someone else’s standard thrust upon us.
Therefore it would be better if, say, linux engineers preemptively design and implement the specification, to ensure that it does not overflow its bounds, to ensure it works sufficiently as required (so it doesn’t spawn worse), and to ensure it protects privacy as much as possible.
Become the standard, to limit what this can do.
Don’t wait until it’s “Microsoft did it this awful way, therefore that is now the standard that holds up in court.”
Those are my 2 cents, but, first of all, I would appeal that law https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/appeals/steps so they notice this makes no sense and it’s a control hazard from now into the future. (enough pressure from enough people can make a law go back)
Second, if this braindead law has to make it I think the logical set up would be, all operating systems are age free of restrictions, and then add a tick box with age restriction to allow it (this could then add the age date so it automatically changes to age restriction free once the person comes of age). So this wouldn’t create such a big chaos and the particular case where, for example, a parent wants to set up an age restricted device for their children, they can do so, isn’t that the logical way?
I mean forcing everyone to go through that just for a small % of the user space seems quite illogical and absurd.
Unfortunately they’re not ultra liberal, they’re bought and paid for on both sides of the isle, though I thought one of the key tenets of liberalism was freedom - namely from exactly this kind of government overreach.
Possibilities for Collective Action
Class Action Suits:
If a significant number of users felt that their rights were being infringed upon, they could unite to challenge practices through class action suits.
Successful legal action could prompt changes in how software companies handle user privacy and compliance, potentially leading to more robust protections.
Community Mobilization:
The open-source community often rallies behind a cause, whether it’s advocating for user privacy, fighting against unnecessary restrictions, or improving transparency.
Mobilizing community resources can amplify the impact of any legal action and generate public support.
Navigating Legal Frameworks
Understanding Legal Grounds:
Legal challenges must be grounded in existing laws. Users would need to identify specific regulations they believe need to be contested—be it age verification laws or others.
Gathering evidence of harm or unfair practices will play a key role in the success of any legal action.
Engaging in Advocacy:
Beyond legal action, user advocacy can influence how companies operate. Highlighting privacy and freedom can result in shifts in policy as companies respond to their user base.
Engaging with legislators to discuss the implications of certain laws on tech freedom can help create a more favorable regulatory environment.
Accessing App Stores
Age Verification: Many app stores may require age verification to access certain software, especially those related to adult content or age-restricted activities.
Grandfather Clause: Generally, if you download software prior to such regulations being enacted, you are not usually required to verify your age for existing installations. However, this may not apply if you wish to download new apps or updates.
Future Updates
Compliance with New Laws: If new age verification laws come into effect, accessing updates for certain applications may require compliance. This might include verifying your age even for software you already have installed.
Operating System Updates: Some distributions may also implement changes that comply with these laws, affecting how you receive updates or access features in the distribution.
Regional Regulations
App stores and software repositories may tailor their policies based on regional laws. If you relocate or your app store changes its terms, you may face different requirements.
Food For Thought:
Accessing App Stores
Age Verification: Many app stores may require age verification to access certain software, especially those related to adult content or age-restricted activities.
Grandfather Clause: Generally, if you download software prior to such regulations being enacted, you are not usually required to verify your age for existing installations. However, this may not apply if you wish to download new apps or updates.
Future Updates
Compliance with New Laws: If new age verification laws come into effect, accessing updates for certain applications may require compliance. This might include verifying your age even for software you already have installed.
Operating System Updates: Some distributions may also implement changes that comply with these laws, affecting how you receive updates or access features in the distribution.
Regional Regulations
App stores and software repositories may tailor their policies based on regional laws. If you relocate or your app store changes its terms, you may face different requirements.
Finally, loss of freedom is the goal of the government. They are not and never have been your friend. Just like Microsoft and Google, they are instead the enemy.
Not a lawyer of course but this legislation seems to go well beyond just operating system providers if I’m reading it right. This section seems to say that every piece of software in existence is legally required to request information from the OS-provided api on download/launch:
(b) (1) 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 also seems to forbid the application from accessing any other OS-level apis:
(4) A developer that receives a signal pursuant to this title shall use that signal to comply with applicable law but shall not do either of the following:
(A) Request more information from an operating system provider or a covered application store than the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title.
METHODS THAT REASONABLY PREVENT AGAINST CIRCUMVENTION
Depending on what California’s bill means by “good faith effort” in this section, could that also be implied by the California bill?
An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title
And if that’s the case, couldn’t one interpretation of “good faith compliance” with this in a way that isn’t circumventable mean that this api would need to live in the kernel? Which would mean that complying with this law could mean discussions with kernel developers. @jspaleta if you wouldn’t mind commenting on these concerns with regard to Fedora’s interpretation of these laws, it would be appreciated.
I wonder why California, a state rife with sex abuse scandals of child stars from Hollywood, is so interested in who is or isn’t a minor online. I wonder why governments, caught in similar very recent and topical scandals, are pushing so hard for age-verification generally.
Then again, I’m likely wearing my tinfoil hat a little too tightly.
A federal judge in Virginia blocked the state from enforcing its social media age-limit law (SB 854) just a few days ago. The judge ruled that the mandate, which forced platforms to verify ages and limit minors to one hour of daily use, violates First Amendment rights by overextending to both adults and children and leaving out addictive interactive games.
A legal precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases, promoting consistency and predictability in common law systems. Precedents can be either binding, requiring lower courts to follow them, or persuasive, allowing courts to consider but not be obligated by them.
I appreciate this ruling. It can also be argued that being forced to provide age information is compelled speech, as it is undeniable that we exist in a society that nearly obligates usage of technology on all levels. We can’t bank easily without technology, can’t apply for employment without it, oftentimes can’t make purchases of necessities or even find housing without an app or online registration of some kind. The right to free speech is important, but the freedom to abstain is even moreso.
