Define "Operating System"...

I guess my washing machine & car are also going to be "not for use in California."

Those Cisco switches & Broadcom DSLAMs would be tricky too ... I guess the internet's "not for use in California."

And the air-gapped power station control system? "not for use in California."

It is annoying that these laws come in (I'm also including magical thinking about encryprion backdoors for "the good guys") without any form of real-world, practical assessment. Complete waste of tax payers money and undue stress for everyone.

FFS.

Seriously, please let that sink in! I desperately need my plumber to fix that sink once and for all

The way this is written, it would just be a case of entering your age or DOB at account creation, which wouldn't be so bad. Indeed, this would be the kind of parent-empowering solution I'd like to see, since it kind of assumes the admin of a device (who sets up user accounts) is an adult who will enter the correct info for their kids.

Of course, there's always the concern they might try to push for adding 3rd party age attestation after the fact, with this being the thin end of the wedge. And it'd be a bit of a pain for the various linux distros to organise a compliant solution even IF it's just adding a new parameter to useradd and the associated "age signal" API for applications to query.

Sorry but I don't think the article text backs up the title?

The claim is that they have to enforce age verification, but the quoted law says:

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.

Doesn't this just mean it needs to ask for an age at setup, so e.g. parents can set it up with an age and they can automatically be restricted?

I don't see anywhere actual verification is required, if you're setting it up yourself then just lie?

Honestly, this sounds like my preferred path if we are gonna do anything.

Imagine you’re not allowed to use your washing machine if you’re under 18.

Not morons, just lying to achieve a different agenda.

I agree. This doesn't seem any more egregious than clicking a button on a website that says "I am over 18".

Which website is that?

What ?

The one with naked people on it.

of all the shit out there, that's what needed attention?!

associated “age signal” API for applications to query.

I'd just add an environment variable.
Nothing more required.

That's a wash basin

Doesn't even make sense. Virtually all Linux distros can function completely offline. How do you do age verification completely offline? Classic politician who doesn't understand tech trying to look like they're doing something to save the kids.

And I don't understand, because windows already does this and has for years. I don't live in California though, so I don't know the particular nuances they are asking for.

The problem is, and has always been, getting parents to use the tools. So unless you're sending parents to jail for not doing this, then it's totally optional and most won't use it.

If you want screentime limits, content filters, browsing history, restricted programs, age verification, wallet control, friends list filters, etc. It exists and is available on Windows and Xbox for free.

Wait, there is more than one?

I suspect something the nonprivileged user can effortlessly change would be deemed insufficient. :P

That's what it sounds to me. You just have to enter a date of birth, which I think puts parents in control of this, rather than shady websites.

Something that I, as a parent, really miss, is the ability to have some parental control without having to subject myself to horrifically broken systems like those from Microsoft and Google, which are just painful to use and don't offer any meaningful control. Minecraft has become almost impossible to use lately, and apparently it's going to get even worse.

More applications should have a simple child mode that connects it to a parent mode that allows the parent to keep an eye on what their kid is doing and enable or disable some features for them, but instead, they make it impossible to create an account, and if you do, you've got an account that can't do anything. It's broken and stupid and shouldn't be so difficult.

Maybe Linux could set a better example in this.

The user needs to tell the system what their age is, so if I get up and a 15yo sits on the computer, they need to change the environment variable before starting any program.
No need for higher privs.

Curious for what it's a distraction, eh?

I think the next bit from the article I didn't quote explains that:

"(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user."
The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and "at least 18 years of age."

I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can't use social media. Then you'd enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.

So basically:

• Parent sets up device for kid and sets their age.
• Kid tries to download Facebook app
• Gets denied because they are under age
• Kid tries to go to facebook website instead
• Website sends request to browser for user's age, browser asks Windows (or whatever OS) for age and provides this age back to Facebook
• Facebook denies access because user is under age

Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it's the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.

I much prefer this than handing over ID.

In every OS I know of including linux, you need admin/su rights to create a user account. If the age is tied to the account that at least prevents tampering without admin/su access.

"At þe account creation screen" þe WHAT NOW? ah yes cause linux definitely has an account creation screen. Could be a loophole

But does the law require that?
From the interpretations I have seen, it doesn't even require real verification, just a way to tell the app, the age of the user.

Honestly I'm not sure. I feel like I'd want that as a parent tho, personally.

So as a parent, you want every person on planet Earth, making a software, to bear the burden of making sure your child cannot use their software without your consent?

You already have the option to buy something with parental controls.
You can also pay someone to add a parental control feature into an Open Source OS and install it for you.

But you'd rather use the politician?

My linux has no screen.

Windows can do that too, for the applications and websites that support it. There is no point in forcing it onto other ecosystems if parents are not willing to use the tools in the ones they already exist in.

The only platforms for now where this might work are Windows, macOS, iOS, and stock Android, however as Muta hypothesized, if this extends to hardware-level, a law could just mandate SecureBoot and lock out the ability to implement custom keys, and then only allow a short list of state-approved OSes to boot on the hardware, which no doubt Windows would be on that short list.

Similarly, all non-Apple mobile devices as an extension to that could be locked exclusively to stock Android, eliminating custom ROMs like LineageOS or GrapheneOS as an option entirely, let alone mobile Linux distros.

MacOS is FreeBSD under the hood, which would also suffer from this.

Everyone needs to realize that all the age verification stuff is just a step towards the purpose, which is having any and all computer operation tied to the person — i.e. as Cory Doctorow has put it, the war on general computation.

They will make it a crime to not have any OS that is not compliant, that simple.

That's the problem. They don't care if you have a screen, they need the screen.

Spotted the thorn þ enjoyer!

Can this be circumvated saying it's distribution rather than OS ? 🤠

Mr. Powers, everybody says that nudity and cursing aren't Internet-safe. How much poem could there possibly be?

Real connoiſſeurs uſe the long s.

Or just refusing to run servers in California. Much like the US DRM encryption restrictions of the 90s. Where the whole Linux community just had distributions required parts of the download to happen in non US servers.

A single, (although big and very active in Linux) state, will always have more limitations then a nation. The issue comes if it becomes US national. And then the US starts pushing other nations to sign agreements.

Given at some point trumps harm to all international treaties will likely be repaired. Their may come a huge opportunity for US politicians to renegotiate international treaties.

Assuming trust is ever returned.

No more than gun laws can be circumvated by referring to firearms as 'high energy shooting implements'

The regulation also mentions an APP STORE

distinction without a difference - lawmakers won't care

I think your keyboard autocorrected minors to morons. (If we learned anything from the epstein files)

But why do they assume that I am going to create an account to simply use an OS?

env USE=-fascism emerge -ave world

I AM a parent. And I will take the fight. Even though all other parrents will call me the "tin foil hat" rather that, than letting my child become a predators next meal online.. These parrents has no idea what social media is all about. It's a fucking addiction. The children can't see this, this is why it's our job to protect them.

I don't care if there is a package called gnome-age-verification distributed in my linux distro and would prefer it if it means fewer sites with facial biometric tests. If I have concerns about the age verification, then I should be able to type:

sudo dnf remove gnome-age-verification

California probably wants it in linux distros so that linux can't be a justification for big tech still demanding Orwellian stuff in every website (ie "but what about the children who use linux? we need to protect them with Persona too!")

But where would it stop? The hell version of this would be kernel-level-approved-AI-agent-checks, with an OS required to have an approved AI agent with a validated third party key that reports to the government with required telemetry and the kernel makes sure the OS won't run without the approved AI and then makes illegal any scripts for unapproved kernel code modification. And post-Tornado cash, we know code is unfortunately not protected US speech.