Federal Bill Would Bring OS-Level Age Verification to the Entire U.S.
Federal Bill Would Bring OS-Level Age Verification to the Entire U.S.
A new federal bill proposes OS-level age verification, advancing beyond state laws to establish a potential nationwide requirement.Bobby Borisov (Linuxiac)
like this
razzazzika
in reply to Sahwa • • •DFX4509B
in reply to razzazzika • • •BlackPenguins
in reply to DFX4509B • • •DFX4509B
in reply to BlackPenguins • • •BlackPenguins
in reply to DFX4509B • • •LuxSpark
in reply to Sahwa • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Lost_My_Mind
in reply to LuxSpark • • •like this
LostWanderer and qupada like this.
FosterMolasses
in reply to Lost_My_Mind • • •It's kind of nuts how people talk about US politicians now the same way we began collectively talking about catholic priests 10 years ago.
I hope the pejorative sticks.
Lost_My_Mind
in reply to FosterMolasses • • •Victor
in reply to Sahwa • • •Telorand
in reply to Victor • • •like this
mrmaplebar likes this.
Victor
in reply to Telorand • • •Telorand
in reply to Victor • • •Victor
in reply to Telorand • • •tidderuuf
in reply to Victor • • •Victor
in reply to tidderuuf • • •Sanctus
in reply to Sahwa • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
saltesc
in reply to Sanctus • • •FauxLiving
in reply to saltesc • • •0_o7
in reply to FauxLiving • • •Is there something that limits a person to a single lemmy account?
You know, to make that watchlist effective?
FauxLiving
in reply to 0_o7 • • •You access the Internet through a network owned by a corporation under the jurisdiction of a government, your ISP knows who you are and so your government knows who you are.
Both of our Lemmy instances are hosted by Hetzner, in Finland and Germany. Both instance's connections are proxied through Cloudflare, an American tech company.
Any one of these entities has the ability to track you to at least an ISP and potentially down to the nearest street intersection if you're using fiber/cable. And that ISP will have records linking your IP lease information to your identity, or at least the credit card/billing information that you provided.
The kind of people who would be putting you on a watchlist are not the kind of people who will be thrown off by simply changing usernames on social media.
kinkles
in reply to saltesc • • •FosterMolasses
in reply to kinkles • • •Granbo's Holy Hotrod
in reply to Sahwa • • •sns
in reply to Granbo's Holy Hotrod • • •Lost_My_Mind
in reply to sns • • •sns
in reply to Lost_My_Mind • • •Lost_My_Mind
in reply to sns • • •Arghblarg
in reply to Lost_My_Mind • • •Lemmyng
in reply to Arghblarg • • •BurgerBaron
in reply to Lost_My_Mind • • •zewm
in reply to Granbo's Holy Hotrod • • •Arghblarg
in reply to zewm • • •baldingpudenda
in reply to Arghblarg • • •lost_faith
in reply to zewm • • •zewm
in reply to lost_faith • • •I have enough backlog of dvds, books, console games and cds to last me the rest of my days. Wouldnât bother me none.
forestbeasts
in reply to Granbo's Holy Hotrod • • •YOU can stop being online, maybe.
We're queer, and furry, and therian, and plural. We do not have community in dirtspace/so-called "real life" (online is just as real).
Some people need the internet to survive.
-- Frost
sns
in reply to Sahwa • • •I left the US in the year 2000 and it's gone downhill since then.
Has to be more than just coincidence.
like this
mrmaplebar likes this.
bigfish
in reply to sns • • •like this
mrmaplebar likes this.
Lost_My_Mind
in reply to bigfish • • •AdamEatsAss
in reply to Sahwa • • •"Key questions remain unanswered, such as the definition of âoperating system provider,â the type of verification required, the focus on major commercial platforms, and the potential scope beyond them."
I guarantee this bill is unenforceable. Cars, phones, traffic lights all have have computers with operating systems. All modern tech has an operating system of some sort. Also how do you even verify age? If my laptop is offline can I just not use it because it can't confirm my id? What about tech that never goes online but has an OS, like a calculator? I can't believe microsoft and apple are not lobbying against this. Who becomes liable if an "underage" person is accidentally given access or if access is denied to an "of age" person. I can just imagine an emt frantically looking for their driver's license so they can use the computerized defibrillator.
like this
Lippy likes this.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to AdamEatsAss • • •It feels like a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington display would solve this.
Just bring everything that has an operating system in it into the room. Cars, boats, planes, construction equipment, tractors, factories, knock off game consoles, literally every server on the internet.
Show them the ridiculousness of this and maybe weâll get dragged out by police and charged with contempt of congress
like this
wassup likes this.
empireOfLove2
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to empireOfLove2 • • •Go ahead and ban the people who are literally running the infrastructure theyâre using
Will the sysadmins in Congress need to verify their age to use a server?
pinball_wizard
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •Yes. Yes, they will.
Petter1
in reply to AdamEatsAss • • •Offline computing?!
But
Rivalarrival
in reply to AdamEatsAss • • •nullify3112
in reply to AdamEatsAss • • •What is this argument? You and I both know they want this age verification at the OS level for personal computing devices: phones, tablets and computers, maybe watches.
Is this really whatâs going to kill this law? Semantics?
__Lost__
in reply to nullify3112 • • •ăéťĺŽśé§ Wong Ka Kuiă(he/him)
in reply to Sahwa • • •Does this apply to Mestashtics?
Meshtashtic-net, anyone?
I wonder what the "Lib-Right" would say about this lmao
theunknownmuncher
in reply to ăéťĺŽśé§ Wong Ka Kuiă(he/him) • • •empireOfLove2
in reply to ăéťĺŽśé§ Wong Ka Kuiă(he/him) • • •Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to empireOfLove2 • • •empireOfLove2
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •"You figure out what was wrong with PLC7 yet?"
"Nah, TrumpCard ID systems are down, can't log in."
"Cool, guess the city is going without running water tonight."
Telorand
in reply to ăéťĺŽśé§ Wong Ka Kuiă(he/him) • • •cmnybo
in reply to Telorand • • •Arghblarg
in reply to Telorand • • •Maybe we could get some open-source routers and kernel patches going to implement this instead: bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.htâŚ
It's what should've been done instead of IPv6 -- well, maybe it's a bit of a non-sequitur for the current problem, but it would create a different internet that maybe could be routed around the age-verified one if that comes to pass.
IPxl
bill.herrin.usgreen_goglin
in reply to Telorand • • •floofloof
in reply to Sahwa • • •Would this bill ban the use of all operating systems released before it became law? That seems unlikely.
So then how about OSs released before it became law, with patches released afterwards? That also seems unlikely.
So then how about my computer's current OS, which is a heavily patched version of a little hobby OS called Linux, originally released in 1991?
flandish
in reply to floofloof • • •pivot_root
in reply to flandish • • •"But that's unenforceable", some will claim.
And to that, let me remind us all of a little-known concept called cryptographic attestation. If that doesn't ring any bells, then the term "secure boot" should.
Once this shit passes into law, that's the next step. Operating system vendors have their private keys to sign attestation tokens saying "John Johnson is an adult" and you're only getting one if you verify your government ID. When you go to a website, your browser sends your signed token to the website and then the website checks if it's a valid token signed by Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
But Linux?, you may be wondering. No. No Linux. Kiss it good-bye. Your bank will "require" identity attestation for "extra security", and your bank doesn't give a fuck about Linux. Your bank will check against whatever list of public keys they want to trust, and it ain't going to include anything not backed by a global megacorporation.
aurelar
in reply to pivot_root • • •eli
in reply to pivot_root • • •I mean I get where you're going with this, but I still don't see how this effects Linux. Oh no I can't access reddit without a government ID...cool I don't use it anyway?
And if Lemmy or whatever else requires one then oh well, I'll find the dozen or so forums that don't care then
pivot_root
in reply to eli • • •It won't at first. If more essential websites start to unnecessarily adopt it, it will start to lock Linux users out of being able to access the services necessary to exist in modern society.
Imagine if you need age/identity verification to:
- Do banking
- Make online purchases
- File your taxes
- Book a doctor's appointment
- Apply for a job
chunes
in reply to flandish • • •theoretically if it's just web servers and apps enforcing this, then techies can move on from the web to something like gemini or gopher and adapt it to their needs.
Also, it's not like websites based in non-USA countries are going to give a shit about this law
a4ng3l
in reply to chunes • • •About that last sentence; the same crap is creeping in Europe at the very least. There was another press release about the eu commission iirc welcoming a similar decision in spirit. Just not implemented at OS level but web-side.
Not sure or Asia and Africa are feeling about this but unfortunately USA is not alone. which in my opinion gives credits to the various theories that itâs being pushed by gafam.
mrmaplebar
in reply to Sahwa • • •like this
IAmLamp, osaerisxero, Chozo, SaltySalamander and Lippy like this.
VoodooAardvark
in reply to mrmaplebar • • •like this
Lippy likes this.
nullify3112
in reply to mrmaplebar • • •Well they could do it the right way where, for example, you go to your city hall to get a certificate of age where they check your ID.
Then some cryptography happens so you only enter a public key from that certificate on a website or OS to verify your age.
The website or OS doesnât check your ID. City hall doesnât know your browsing history.
But Iâm not fooling myself, thatâs not the point of such a law.
BonkTheAnnoyed
in reply to nullify3112 • • •MrKoyun
in reply to BonkTheAnnoyed • • •BonkTheAnnoyed
in reply to MrKoyun • • •MrKoyun
in reply to BonkTheAnnoyed • • •Holytimes
in reply to BonkTheAnnoyed • • •ferrule
in reply to BonkTheAnnoyed • • •That's not true. It's simple if all you actually want is age verification.
You go in to the government building and show your ID. Seeing you are 18 or older you get to go to another room where they don't check your ID, just give you a token saying the one holding it is over 18. Make the token like a FIDO key where you have a pin you set yourself.
There is an air gap between the validation and the token creation so there is no way to go from token to ID. You make the key use a pin so we consider it to be once usable by one person.
The issue is not about the technology. The issue is that we all know this has nothing to do with kids getting on porn sites.
harmbugler
in reply to ferrule • • •Now you have trusted the user not to provide the PIN to another, and the implementation is no longer correct. You'd at least need to use biometrics to tie the key to the person.
ferrule
in reply to harmbugler • • •You are changing the goal. The point of this is to provide THE USER with a solution where they don't have to give away their personal information to the Government or the 3rd Party site. We do not care about situations where users commit crimes as that means our focus is on the Government's needs which they would already have met by just implementing a "Show us your ID" solution.
Now you could make the pin be a biometric so it's physically connected to the user. But part of the solution needs to be that the token is not identifiable with the user. If I pull of my wrist band no one will know it was mine. If you throw out your token someone could go around testing everyone's fingers and find out it was yours.
harmbugler
in reply to ferrule • • •ferrule
in reply to harmbugler • • •no, the point of the key is to access infomatĂŽon without giving away personal information.
Even a photo ID doesn't prove age. It just shows a record of what age the gov thinks someone is. They are still prone to forgery, misuse, etc. There isn't any actual method of showing someone's age so we can skip that part and focus on what the actual need of the user is, accessing a website while not handing over more personal information than is necessary.
harmbugler
in reply to ferrule • • •ferrule
in reply to harmbugler • • •They are going to accept whatever the government says is acceptable. We are already seeing it where IPs from some states get blocked when state law says you need to submit an ID to get access to porn.
I think the issue you're having is that you're still under the impression that the point of this law is to actually restrict minors from accessing sites. It's not. And we know this because of what the politicians are doing and how they are doing it. I've written about this before but I'll give you the short version.
Self reporting Date of Birth doesn't work as people lie so you need something better. But as we have discussed there isn't typically a great option because of the way government and technology works. Anyone in the government who thinks any solution won't have holes is an idiot, so we can ignore those people for right now. The rest of the people pushing this bill must then have malicious intent.
What happens after this bill is implemented and holes are found? The same politicians say "We need to just go full ID instead of Age" and because they already hav
... Show more...They are going to accept whatever the government says is acceptable. We are already seeing it where IPs from some states get blocked when state law says you need to submit an ID to get access to porn.
I think the issue you're having is that you're still under the impression that the point of this law is to actually restrict minors from accessing sites. It's not. And we know this because of what the politicians are doing and how they are doing it. I've written about this before but I'll give you the short version.
Self reporting Date of Birth doesn't work as people lie so you need something better. But as we have discussed there isn't typically a great option because of the way government and technology works. Anyone in the government who thinks any solution won't have holes is an idiot, so we can ignore those people for right now. The rest of the people pushing this bill must then have malicious intent.
What happens after this bill is implemented and holes are found? The same politicians say "We need to just go full ID instead of Age" and because they already have the bill passed for age it will be a far more simple bill to just bump up what goes into the Operating Systems. Heck it will most likely be snuck in some other unrelated bill and no one will care.
If all they really wanted was for there to be age restrictions they would have left it up to the service providers to find a way to resolve the age issue. This is how we see it implemented with all IRL issues. There isn't a government provided token created for the sole purpose of purchasing beer or guns or hard copy porn. When you go to a liquor store it is up to the seller to do a verification. I've seen people use foreign passports, one guy came into a bar I was working and showed me his birth certificate because he didn't have a drivers license anymore. If someone just looks really old they don't even get carded.
Why would we want the sites to find a solution? Because some solutions are bad, like giving your full ID. If any site asks for that people can say nope and not use those specific services, finding alternatives that ask in ways the individual is comfortable with. You can trust who you want to trust and ignore those you don't. Where as if the government takes the info an keeps a big database and you have no other options you're just SOL.
commie
in reply to Sahwa • • •marine_mustang
in reply to Sahwa • • •chunes
in reply to marine_mustang • • •magic_smoke
in reply to chunes • • •Ill throw my data on an offshore vps, load my lappy up with a dummy normal looking win 11 install, and drive my ass across to Canada if it keeps getting worse.
Fuck that.
lost_faith
in reply to magic_smoke • • •magic_smoke
in reply to lost_faith • • •Virtvirt588
in reply to marine_mustang • • •I'd like to add, while it might be totally unenforceable, it provides a much more higher attack surface for the general populace allowing the authorities to abuse the system even further.
peopleproblems
in reply to Sahwa • • •Arghblarg
in reply to Sahwa • • •I posted an idea over here about a week ago, I think it might actually meet the legal requirements without any OS changes for Linux/BSD/POSIX UNIX type OSes.
old.lemmy.ca/post/63108248
A Proposal to make the 'age verification' forces happy -- with no OS changes at all. : linux
old.lemmy.caScoffingLizard
in reply to Arghblarg • • •Devolution
in reply to Sahwa • • •Imgonnatrythis
in reply to Devolution • • •jalkasieni
in reply to Devolution • • •The likely end play for all this is the erosion of personal computing so they can rent (and therefore control) all the compute available to you, so you donât get uppity and think of running your own AI, which they believe will be as integral to everyday life as the internet is today.
like this
Lippy likes this.
yeehaw
in reply to Devolution • • •The same way the next laws will keep kids safe. When you leave your front door, you will have to drop your pants so the TSA can check your asshole. It's necessary. You know. To keep kids safe.
/s
đ¤Śââď¸đ¤ˇââď¸
phutatorius
in reply to yeehaw • • •FosterMolasses
in reply to phutatorius • • •Reposted to death, but in case anyone new hasn't seen Smart Pipe yet:
youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBâŚ
Smart Pipe | Infomercials | Adult Swim
Adult Swim (YouTube)End-Stage-Ligma
in reply to Devolution • • •bagsy
in reply to Sahwa • • •like this
Lippy likes this.
nosuchanon
in reply to bagsy • • •ripcord
in reply to nosuchanon • • •nosuchanon
in reply to ripcord • • •Well now you have to provide ID to use any of those.
This is just another form of control and a potential verified data stream for governments/corporations/marketers.
How can you prove that internet traffic is a human and not a bot? ID verification.
How can you generate more user data? Force them to provide ID for every device that is connected.
Want to control piracy? Easy with OS level ID requirements.
TheVoiceOfRaison
in reply to bagsy • • •EndlessNightmare
in reply to TheVoiceOfRaison • • •IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet
in reply to Sahwa • • •/home/pineapplelover
in reply to Sahwa • • •Virtvirt588
in reply to /home/pineapplelover • • •deathbird
in reply to Sahwa • • •Primary Josh Gottheimer.
Write in anyone else against him.
Vote against him or withhold voting at all in the general.
Do not signal that this is tolerated.
unitedwithme
in reply to deathbird • • •deathbird
in reply to unitedwithme • • •unitedwithme
in reply to deathbird • • •deathbird
in reply to unitedwithme • • •Either way it's a problem.
If politicians are writing tech bills to deliberately undermine freedom: fire them.
If they're writing bad tech policy because they're not consulting the "good guys" first, such as the FSF, EFF, or OSI: also fire them.
unitedwithme
in reply to deathbird • • •The other things politicians do, like in Illinois, is introduce one bill, and his other things within it to get things passed outside the normal channels. Like when Pritzker up and banned 170+specific firearms, ammo limitations, threaded barrels, and then started a registration process. Also repealed knowingly spreading HIV illegal, so anyone (by the sound of it-haven't looked into it much) can sleep with a new partner without disclosing HIV status. I'm assuming that's to appeal somehow to the LGBTQ community since the bulk of voters are the Chicago area, but some time he purely for just in time for elections.
You might think the firearms thing is OK as it helps cut down on crime. Nope, instead, there's cashless bail and softer policies towards criminals. We can't even accurately report those numbers based on how crimes or incidents are categorized. It's a mess.
He also just made it so that a bulk of the DOT funds go to Chicago roads with little left over for the remainder of the state... The tolls collected by the Chicago area are supposed to help that, but nooo, just
... Show more...The other things politicians do, like in Illinois, is introduce one bill, and his other things within it to get things passed outside the normal channels. Like when Pritzker up and banned 170+specific firearms, ammo limitations, threaded barrels, and then started a registration process. Also repealed knowingly spreading HIV illegal, so anyone (by the sound of it-haven't looked into it much) can sleep with a new partner without disclosing HIV status. I'm assuming that's to appeal somehow to the LGBTQ community since the bulk of voters are the Chicago area, but some time he purely for just in time for elections.
You might think the firearms thing is OK as it helps cut down on crime. Nope, instead, there's cashless bail and softer policies towards criminals. We can't even accurately report those numbers based on how crimes or incidents are categorized. It's a mess.
He also just made it so that a bulk of the DOT funds go to Chicago roads with little left over for the remainder of the state... The tolls collected by the Chicago area are supposed to help that, but nooo, just keep reallocating funds around election time. Sure.
Jarvis2323
in reply to Sahwa • • •like this
AGuyAcrossTheInternet likes this.
AndyMFK
in reply to Jarvis2323 • • •FosterMolasses
in reply to AndyMFK • • •FosterMolasses
in reply to Jarvis2323 • • •Lollll
Tollana1234567
in reply to Sahwa • • •ScoffingLizard
in reply to Tollana1234567 • • •End-Stage-Ligma
in reply to ScoffingLizard • • •Holytimes
in reply to Tollana1234567 • • •AHemlocksLie
in reply to Tollana1234567 • • •WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to AHemlocksLie • • •green_goglin
in reply to Tollana1234567 • • •Tollana1234567
in reply to green_goglin • • •how to stay young and probably prey on them, probably learned from another rich AH bryan johnson who is trying to stay young buy sucking the blood of his son, and doing "pseudoscience" on himself with questionable scientists about longevity.
one of thiel's partner while married is a young male model, i get its a thing for older gay guys who are rich.
green_goglin
in reply to Tollana1234567 • • •Eggyhead
in reply to Sahwa • • •phutatorius
in reply to Eggyhead • • •There's already being work done to add an optional age-attestation in systemd.
And note that none of the laws proposed so far are actually verifying age, they're only requiring someone to enter it. That's attestation, not verification. Verification will be the next tightening of the screw.
ScoffingLizard
in reply to phutatorius • • •root
in reply to ScoffingLizard • • •LostWanderer
in reply to Sahwa • • •green_goglin
in reply to LostWanderer • • •PancakesCantKillMe
in reply to LostWanderer • • •Kudos on paying them some attention!
Does AIPAC pay them more?
UnimportantHuman
in reply to PancakesCantKillMe • • •anon_8675309
in reply to Sahwa • • •GreenBottles
in reply to Sahwa • • •Railcar8095
in reply to GreenBottles • • •Encrypt-Keeper
in reply to GreenBottles • • •Silver Needle
in reply to Encrypt-Keeper • • •FosterMolasses
in reply to Sahwa • • •Okay, what is this bill actually saying?
That soon, you won't even be able to own most computers without registering it under a government ID?
Because that's fucking nuts.
T00l_shed
in reply to FosterMolasses • • •SocialMediaRefugee
in reply to FosterMolasses • • •Canaconda
in reply to SocialMediaRefugee • • •#Writing prompt
Like JFC what a fiction concept! Oh wait you meant like to turn them on. I was imagining some loony toons shit.
SocialMediaRefugee
in reply to Canaconda • • •Canaconda
in reply to SocialMediaRefugee • • •limit them to wifi range. Oh yea all realistic and logical things.
I was imaginging shooting people over dms
Crackhappy
in reply to Canaconda • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to Sahwa • • •Now do you see why I don't trust government?
Because it does things like this. And it's not just our US government doing it. The entire world is getting more and more authoritarian.
Government seeks power. Always. Which is why it must always be restrained.
Soup
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •I trust the government, in that a government elected by a moderately intelligent population won’t be doing this fuckshit.
The biggest problem is that human beings are, by and large, far too stupid. As one guy put it, too many fully-grown adults are falling for obvious games of Peek-a-boo. There are billions of people so stupid that there are birds with greater levels of intelligence and problem solving skills.
We could have a wonderful world with a government that genuinely works for the people but instead half of us are voting our lives away just to spite already-disadvantaged minorities and the other half is voting for centrists because they’re too scared of even moderately progressive politicians. And the whole time polls show us as generally quite left-leaning, even the “conservatives” but we aren’t clever enough to see the tribalism right in front of us.
Governments are representing their people, that’s the problem, and there’s also no solution that doesn’t itself devolve into authoritarianism almost i
... Show more...I trust the government, in that a government elected by a moderately intelligent population wonât be doing this fuckshit.
The biggest problem is that human beings are, by and large, far too stupid. As one guy put it, too many fully-grown adults are falling for obvious games of Peek-a-boo. There are billions of people so stupid that there are birds with greater levels of intelligence and problem solving skills.
We could have a wonderful world with a government that genuinely works for the people but instead half of us are voting our lives away just to spite already-disadvantaged minorities and the other half is voting for centrists because theyâre too scared of even moderately progressive politicians. And the whole time polls show us as generally quite left-leaning, even the âconservativesâ but we arenât clever enough to see the tribalism right in front of us.
Governments are representing their people, thatâs the problem, and thereâs also no solution that doesnât itself devolve into authoritarianism almost immediately. The only thing Iâm genuinely holding out for is that the leaded-fuel-poisoning theory is real and we all smarten the fuck up ASAP. Reality is screaming at us to figure it the fuck out.
cunnililgus
in reply to Soup • • •Be kind to others, the game is rigged against them. Propaganda has never been stronger and its everywhere.
Just yesterday I saw a video discussing how private equities buy up YouTube channels to seemingly both squeeze them for their worth and/or use their trust to push an agenda. E.g. fern & veritasium stood out to me the most.
Soup
in reply to cunnililgus • • •Capybara_mdp
in reply to cunnililgus • • •cunnililgus
in reply to Capybara_mdp • • •Janx
in reply to Sahwa • • •DFX4509B (Joshua Mason)
in reply to Janx • •This is gonna kill the internet, and then free speech in general is going to fall alongside it.
It's also gonna kill device ownership as you will no longer own your device under this law.
The end game is everyone accessing info through a state intranet like NK has, through government-issued thin clients, where only the state decides what you can and can't say and what data you can have access to.
Virtvirt588
in reply to Janx • • •Formfiller
in reply to Sahwa • • •E_coli42
in reply to Sahwa • • •DFX4509B (Joshua Mason)
in reply to E_coli42 • •@E_coli42 @Sahwa
And the First.
thax
in reply to Sahwa • • •A few years ago, due in part to frustration with our information environs, but also for fun, I decided not to get internet after moving to a new apartment. I didn't have real internet for about 2 years. I did have 1GB of data per month through my phone service and used my phone or a mPCIE 4g card as an uplink for text-only internet. I restricted myself to JS-free http applications or light protocols like gopher, irc, rss, etc. I quite enjoyed my time having to be very mindful of my data usage. It forced me to fully audit all the technology on my LAN.
If this kind of legislation passes, I simply won't pay for internet. If both ISPs and telecoms start restricting devices, then I'll forego cell-based data as well. If public wifi spots become too restrictive, I won't patron those spots. I've accumulated more offline content on my server than I could ever consume in many lifetimes, so it really isn't a loss. Hell, it'd be an opportunity to organize it all well, and share via meshnets. Don't tempt me with a good time, politicians. I could save money, nerd out, and cut the noise fr
... Show more...A few years ago, due in part to frustration with our information environs, but also for fun, I decided not to get internet after moving to a new apartment. I didn't have real internet for about 2 years. I did have 1GB of data per month through my phone service and used my phone or a mPCIE 4g card as an uplink for text-only internet. I restricted myself to JS-free http applications or light protocols like gopher, irc, rss, etc. I quite enjoyed my time having to be very mindful of my data usage. It forced me to fully audit all the technology on my LAN.
If this kind of legislation passes, I simply won't pay for internet. If both ISPs and telecoms start restricting devices, then I'll forego cell-based data as well. If public wifi spots become too restrictive, I won't patron those spots. I've accumulated more offline content on my server than I could ever consume in many lifetimes, so it really isn't a loss. Hell, it'd be an opportunity to organize it all well, and share via meshnets. Don't tempt me with a good time, politicians. I could save money, nerd out, and cut the noise from my information environments? Sign me up!
edit: I wanted to add: I do really like having a fiber link, but the main draw is having the ability to host my own services. If that goes away due to hierarchical pricing or device/encryption restrictions, 95% of the value prop disappears. I will not be strong armed into using overly-centralized services.
Vieric
in reply to Sahwa • • •RizzRustbolt
in reply to Sahwa • • •Palantir really wants it's fucking database.
All because Petey truly believes that there are demons living in the United States.
TransNeko
in reply to RizzRustbolt • • •RizzRustbolt
in reply to TransNeko • • •No the sad truth is that Peter Theil is, in fact, human. A human that we are all capable of becoming.
You just have to make a billion bad decisions to get where he is now.
TransNeko
in reply to RizzRustbolt • • •greyscale
in reply to RizzRustbolt • • •BoJackHorseman
in reply to greyscale • • •itisileclerk
in reply to RizzRustbolt • • •lil_era76
in reply to Sahwa • • •_g_be
in reply to lil_era76 • • •Could? Absolutely?
Will? ...
Havoc8154
in reply to Sahwa • • •Obviously everyone here hates this, but I'm gonna offer another perspective here and prepare for the down votes I guess.
There is a very good argument for OS level age 'tracking' as a means of creating a cohesive environment for software and websites to operate without having to implement individual age verification. The biggest actual issue here is how the OS determines what the user's age is. If this is implemented similar to what California has done, the OS would simply ask for the user's age at setup, and store that value, which can then be reported to programs and websites as needed. This would allow parents to setup a device for the child and not have to separately implement parental controls on every individual conceivable program, which are often easily circumvented. This would undermine any individual website's attempts to use age verification as an excuse to collect government ID data, and the security risks inherent to that.
There's no need to put any kind of validation onto this, it should simply be self-reported.
Now admittedly I don't trust our gove
... Show more...Obviously everyone here hates this, but I'm gonna offer another perspective here and prepare for the down votes I guess.
There is a very good argument for OS level age 'tracking' as a means of creating a cohesive environment for software and websites to operate without having to implement individual age verification. The biggest actual issue here is how the OS determines what the user's age is. If this is implemented similar to what California has done, the OS would simply ask for the user's age at setup, and store that value, which can then be reported to programs and websites as needed. This would allow parents to setup a device for the child and not have to separately implement parental controls on every individual conceivable program, which are often easily circumvented. This would undermine any individual website's attempts to use age verification as an excuse to collect government ID data, and the security risks inherent to that.
There's no need to put any kind of validation onto this, it should simply be self-reported.
Now admittedly I don't trust our government to implement this in any kind of reasonable way so I definitely understand and respect the outrage, but I guess I'm just trying to find some positive aspect of how this might be implemented.
BlackPenguins
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •MasterNerd
in reply to BlackPenguins • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Meta created the software the has lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of child suicide and they don’t want to be held accountable. AI companies have allowed the proliferation of CSAM, copyright infringement, and straight up theft of intellectual property, and want to push that off to OS as the responsible party.
Google and Apple don’t fight it because they have extraordinarily deep pockets and already have the infrastructures in place in their app stores to accommodate this tomfoolery.
This is also another avenue for increased surveillance at the deepest level of your digital life that is already extremely compromised.
If we want parents to have more controls, then mandate easy to use parent controls for OS’s, apps, and web apps. Legislate mandating firewalls and routers have easy to use pare... Show more...
Meta created the software the has lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of child suicide and they donât want to be held accountable. AI companies have allowed the proliferation of CSAM, copyright infringement, and straight up theft of intellectual property, and want to push that off to OS as the responsible party.
Google and Apple donât fight it because they have extraordinarily deep pockets and already have the infrastructures in place in their app stores to accommodate this tomfoolery.
This is also another avenue for increased surveillance at the deepest level of your digital life that is already extremely compromised.
If we want parents to have more controls, then mandate easy to use parent controls for OSâs, apps, and web apps. Legislate mandating firewalls and routers have easy to use parental controls for internet settings. Pay people living wages and work them less hours so they can learn to use those things.
Donât add spyware into the OS.
âTake off your tin hat dude.â
How do you think theyâll verify age at the OS level? It will have to have an api that can be used to obtain the age verified information. Whoâs responsive for reviewing all that PII? Where does that go? Who retains that information and for how long? What encryption technology is mandated to protect it from breach?
Nah, man, no thanks.
Havoc8154
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Letâs just say meta delivers some problematic content that traumatizes a kid and really upsets parents. This content was on the 12-year-olds Chromebook. The kid, then setting up the laptop with his parents had his age in there appropriately, and Met used theAPI to obtain it to prevent adult content delivery.
However, kid is tech savvy, creates a secondary accounts, says they are 45. Maybe uses parents ID or something to do it. They then get the adult content. Parents file suit.
Meta lawyers: Our API works as designed, and we can be held liable when the OS API says the person is 45 and not 12.
Case dismissed. Profit.
But okay, definitely nonsensical.
Havoc8154
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •How do you think they will verify the age entered into the OS? Smh
Havoc8154
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •I did⌠and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it wouldâve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified.
Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
Havoc8154
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Should you have to verify your age to your car before you can turn it in, to drive to the DMV before you can obtain your license and registration? Who should have the burden?
Should your front door verify your age before you leave to go buy alcohol from the local liquor store?
Should your bed verify your age and the age of your lover before you have sex?
Also, this isnât even the biggest problem, the problem is this is just more surveillance. Donât comply in advance. Default to protect and keep your freedom by protecting your privacy.
ImitationLimitation
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •The same data bend used to target political opponents by governments.
But itâs cool. Itâs for the safety of the kids!!!
pfried
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they're required to check if they're a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they're a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.
This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we'll see how it gets amended.
ImitationLimitation
in reply to pfried • • •People thought the patriot act was a great idea after 911⌠They were wrong.
pfried
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn't make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.
Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn't give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information is information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn't require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.
ImitationLimitation
in reply to pfried • • •Your Offline Hardware Will Brick Itself + Hardware Makers Face Infinite Fines (OS Age Verification)
Jody Bruchon (YouTube)pfried
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to pfried • • •Itâs about kid safety! Take off your tin hat! Right?
⌠well
lemmy.ml/post/46083470
â YĎÉ ĆÔĎĘ â
2026-04-17 22:37:27
pfried
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •ImitationLimitation
in reply to pfried • • •This thread isnât about California.
JasonDJ
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •Sorry but no. That would drive up the cost of all firewalls and routers, for no real reason, except that the manufacturers can because the government says they have to. And most firewalls that offer content filtering need some sort of a subscription to keep the filters up-to-date.
Never mind the fact that a router's job isn't content filtering (it's routing).
Todays parents grew up exposed to the internet. If we don't know how to protect our own kids and teach them how to safely use the internet, then we are hopeless as a generation.
Btw, Cloudflare WARP is free for a small number of users and has a pretty decent web filter built in. It's far from easy to use, but it's free and effective. I use it on my 9yo's Fedora laptop, and as long as he can't sudo, he can't turn it off. And if he even tries to sudo, he will be reminded that he's not in the sudoers file, and this incident WILL be reported.
ImitationLimitation
in reply to JasonDJ • • •I donât think any of that should happen.
JasonDJ
in reply to ImitationLimitation • • •I mean, it very easily could be. A service like WARP, they can decrypt the traffic, if you allow them to (it is off by default). The warp client will add the certificate to the trust-store, and the traffic will get decrypted on Cloudflare's end.
For my kid, I kept deep-inspection off. If he figures out how to get past DNS and SNI inspections, he deserves to see a boob or two.
zalgotext
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Holytimes
in reply to zalgotext • • •The system D thing was optional and self reported and had no call home.
Dude got fucking death threats over it
You LITERALLY can't win.
zalgotext
in reply to Holytimes • • •The death threats were shitty, I agree. But they were at least partially fueled by the fact that we have lawmakers trying to make it illegal to use an operating system that doesn't ask for your age. If that systemd change was introduced in a different time, I doubt people would have even noticed or cared.
Not trying to excuse the death threats, because again, that's shitty, there's no reason to do that. I think it's important to understand the context and nuance around all that though.
Spice Hoarder
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Havoc8154
in reply to Spice Hoarder • • •Spice Hoarder
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Katana314
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Ageless Linux â Software for Humans of Indeterminate Age
agelesslinux.orgHavoc8154
in reply to Katana314 • • •Their argument is entirely based on the assumption that the child can change their DOB on the device at any time. That's trivially easy to avoid with a simple admin password requirement. If this was implemented in any competent way (granted, that is a lot to expect of legislators) the DOB would not be able to be changed once the device/user account is setup, or would require an administrator password which obviously shouldn't be given to the child.
But they turn around and say this is good and how things should work:
Yeah, the kid that's willing to change their device settings is definitely going to go check in with Mom before they access something they know they shouldn't be on. That's just an unbelievably bad argument.
Katana314
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they're likely to recognize it has an "admin setup", or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they're likely the one to figure it out.
I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.
"Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn't work!"
"Okay...sweetie, I'm running late for my shift, what's the problem?"
"It says I'm...that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-"
"Did you give it your age?"
"My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?"
"Put in...put in 1980 for the year. It's fine. I gotta go. Love you."
"Really? Okay. ...Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
slam
"Huh. What's HotChat...?"
Versus this: (What the website proposes)
"Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?"
... Show more..."Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?"
"Well there's this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I ca
In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they're likely to recognize it has an "admin setup", or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they're likely the one to figure it out.
I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.
"Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn't work!"
"Okay...sweetie, I'm running late for my shift, what's the problem?"
"It says I'm...that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-"
"Did you give it your age?"
"My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?"
"Put in...put in 1980 for the year. It's fine. I gotta go. Love you."
"Really? Okay. ...Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
slam
"Huh. What's HotChat...?"
Versus this: (What the website proposes)
"Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?"
"Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?"
"Well there's this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I can chat with people on the internet. But I should ask first."
"Let me see. ...Sweetie, this doesn't look like something that's for you. We don't know if the people you're talking to are strangers, or even dangerous people."
"Ohhh."
"I can...I gotta go, but I'll try to find you some apps that will let you chat with kids from school. Okay?"
"Aw. Okay. I can still play Fortnite though, right?"
"I...yeah. Fortnite is fine. Don't put anything on there without talking to me, you promise?"
"I promise."
The site even backs this up: That open communication about dangers, rather than hard, automatic restrictions tends to lead to healthier upbringing from kids. Setting up fully automated barriers just leads to creative workarounds, since ultimately, adults and businesses will demand convenience - and kids will find ways to get access to it too.
Havoc8154
in reply to Katana314 • • •So scenario one has a parent who is paying no attention to their child's questions, but in scenario 2 they're suddenly attentive and totally in tune with what their child is doing?
Look, you can't fix everything for everyone, but a simple explanation for first time setup of a device is not difficult, especially if it was implemented as a national movement (law or otherwise). Absentee parents are still gonna absentee, but it would be a tool that parents who give a shit could really benefit from.
Katana314
in reply to Havoc8154 • • •Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they're not going to make the case that the child "doesn't deserve to use devices". You could even theorize that the last part, discovering "HotChat", happens on their own time.
In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I'm even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.
I'd need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, "simple explanation for first time setup" would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won't take simple pa
... Show more...Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they're not going to make the case that the child "doesn't deserve to use devices". You could even theorize that the last part, discovering "HotChat", happens on their own time.
In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I'm even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.
I'd need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, "simple explanation for first time setup" would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won't take simple paths for it, when most children are granted their own devices.
I'm very much in favor of giving parents tools for those things. But the way security works is, it will always be at war with convenience. As soon as people lean towards shortcuts that circumvent the intent of security (because not everyone's lives are based around these secure systems), the tight-gripped approach to security fails out. We want parents to choose to learn these tools on their own time, not simply have them presented as a roadblock to access.
FoxtrotDeltaTango
in reply to Sahwa • • •AlexLost
in reply to Sahwa • • •BoJackHorseman
in reply to AlexLost • • •FlyingCircus
in reply to BoJackHorseman • • •Sprinks
in reply to Sahwa • • •SnarkoPolo
in reply to Sahwa • • •phx
in reply to Sahwa • • •The ONLY way I could remotely support age verification is if it was anonymized from the individual, similar to how companies like Mullvad do their VPN or with prepaid gift cards etc
You get a card that has a PIN behind a scratch-off section. You can buy the card for cash or order online, but there's nothing tying the buyer to the card.
Age verification can be similar where you go to a registered location, provide valid ID and like $5 to get a scratch off card. The code on the card just validates "user is 18+" but otherwise has no ties back to their actual identity.
If a site wants to do an age check, it can validate the card PIN or on phone potentially scan a 3d barcode behind the scratch-off. Maybe some hash check could be involved to avoid the need for a centralized provider.
chaogomu
in reply to phx • • •I would support a simple toggle, a content safe mode and an unrestricted mode, selectable at the OS level through a parental controls option. Then have sites flag all "objectionable" or not safe for work material. The restricted mode would not even download such content.
Done, more power to parents, and smart kids, while not destroying the internet to block content that conservatives don't like. Which is what all of these laws are based on.
lightnsfw
in reply to phx • • •phx
in reply to lightnsfw • • •I mean, for the most part yes. I'm not even so much concerned about my kids viewing porn, more so than somebody else will make nasty deepfakes of them and post online etc, so age verification won't fix that.
I could see it help with discriminating between people at their "own damn computers" and bots or misinformation/psyops campaigns run out of certain foreign countries though (assuming any ID also ties back to parent country).
korazail
in reply to lightnsfw • • •Like... "This"
My computer, regardless of the OS that it runs, should do my bidding and only my bidding.
If I want to enable or disable something, that should be my prerogative.
I commented in a similar thread and I'll restate it here:
I do support parental controls being an option, and will use the whole Free-Market thing and choose to use an OS that has parental controls for my children -- but I am also happy to see my children evade my restrictions with their knowledge and skills. And, more specifically, these need to be OPT-IN. As a parent, I can create an account and identify it as supervised or give it an age range, and that's all cool. What isn't cool is making me Verify* MY age range in order to create an account on a device I own.
*especially verification that involves giving up my privacy, such as face scan, government ID or similar PII. We used to have laws protecting this data. I've helped build whole systems to ensure that only trained admins had rights to access customer PII.
H.R. 8250 is an attack on freedom to use... everything..
... Show more...Like... "This"
My computer, regardless of the OS that it runs, should do my bidding and only my bidding.
If I want to enable or disable something, that should be my prerogative.
I commented in a similar thread and I'll restate it here:
I do support parental controls being an option, and will use the whole Free-Market thing and choose to use an OS that has parental controls for my children -- but I am also happy to see my children evade my restrictions with their knowledge and skills. And, more specifically, these need to be OPT-IN. As a parent, I can create an account and identify it as supervised or give it an age range, and that's all cool. What isn't cool is making me Verify* MY age range in order to create an account on a device I own.
*especially verification that involves giving up my privacy, such as face scan, government ID or similar PII. We used to have laws protecting this data. I've helped build whole systems to ensure that only trained admins had rights to access customer PII.
H.R. 8250 is an attack on freedom to use... everything... It's so vague, and doesn't even describe it's terms the way the California bill does. A Missile developed by Lockheed Martin has an Operating System and I'm certain that if I had one in my hands I could make it run DOOM, thus making it a 'General Purpose Computing Device'.
... Maybe those Doom-on-fridge/toaster people were on to something. Samsung, LG, etc need to quickly evaluate their fucking toasters to ensure they can't run DOOM, or ensure they can verify a user's age before enabling toasting.
I also (dis)like how section 2.A.5.i will require the commission to describe how every operating system will verify a parent or legal guardian's age's within 6 months and then have an effective date of a year. Has anyone involved with writing this bill done software development?! Sure, this sounds simple on paper, but I have a 30+ year plan to actually implement it; because I'm a volunteer open source dev working on my OS in my free time without pay.
Anyone looking at this and thinking it's a good idea, take a moment to think about this: Who has resources to dedicate whole teams to implementing this privacy invasion? It's the big players like Microslop, Apple, Google, and a handful of Enterprise-grade Linux/Unix providers. Anyone else could face financial ruin for distributing their home-grown OS experiment if it gets enough attention and that will prevent new distros or operating systems from being developed, leading to effectively regulatory capture by the existing players. That's not going to end well.
Doom on a Toaster ...
Aaron Christophel (YouTube)uniquethrowagay
in reply to phx • • •It's not perfect but pretty good from a privacy standpoint.
phx
in reply to uniquethrowagay • • •Rivermoonwolf
in reply to Sahwa • • •Solrac
in reply to Sahwa • • •youtu.be/Yd7j_u-wPoM
Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer: "It's time to limit America's First Amendment. We need to
CClips (YouTube)ImitationLimitation
in reply to Sahwa • • •For all those that truly believe this is no big deal, and honestly believe itâs about kids, and think all the commenters in here are silly or tin hat wearers⌠go read this:
lemmy.ml/post/46083470
Short version: US based company providing age verification has US Govt. surveillance within their stack that adds you to all kinds of potential lists, among other concerns. It also serves as a huge honeypot of data just waiting to be breached, and it will be breached.
For those in the back not paying attention: THIS IS NOT ABOUT KID SAFETY, ITâS ABOUT TRACKING YOU AND YOUR KIDS!
â YĎÉ ĆÔĎĘ â
2026-04-17 22:37:27