- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or # to comment.
Hello Fellow Lemmings,
I called a few of my state reps and senators about this. I wasn’t able to get through to Matt Ball, but I spoke with a member of Paschall’s staff who was very polite and helpful despite our disagreements. i also spoke to my own rep’s staff but they were not terribly tech savvy. As I suspected, to some degree, this is being framed as an attempt to introduce a less harmful scheme and set the standard before the feds or peer pressure from other states does. Apparently Paschall is meeting with System 76 soon and I asked her aid to let me know what comes of that. I still think it’s bullshit and it’s crazy to try this with a backdrop of eroding right, liberties, overreach of law enforcement, and mass surveillance of the American people. The Democrats can’t do shit for their liberal constituents, but they’re kneeling at the feet of the Republicans begging to cooperate anytime they want to do anything authoritarian “for the public good.”
Interesting thing about Colorado: we have a ballot initiative process to amend the state constitution where if a citizen collects enough signatures to get an issue on the ballot, we get to vote on it. I don’t know who is fighting against this legislation, I’ve done research and all I can find is the EFF, a few articles, and now System76. I would like to plug in to lobby against this sort of thing. How dope would it be if they passed it only to have us unpass it and collect enough signatures to get a constitutional amendment banning all identity and age verification and declaring that the power lies with the parents onto the ballot.
With that said, a tolerable outcome would be if retailers selling PCs into Colorado were required to include a bundled copy of parental control software unless the customer declines it. This gives parents the opportunity and a slight push to get involved. Do I need a copy of NortonAVGDefenderChildWatchProMAX to be bundled with every new NAS I buy? No. Is it better than the shit they’re proposing now, yes.
If you read to the end, please call Ball, Paschal, and the other cosponsors and let them know that the Democratic party is taking a huge risk by shitting on their constituents by pulling out such a controversial issue at such a inopportune time. Tell them to vote NO!
Here’s a link to the text and the sponsors: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
The whole law is dumb. They need to create a standard universal method first. So when does this protection get applied? Can’t somebody just boot a thumb drive?
All the other problems with it aside literally this… All operating system providers, including Linux somehow, are supposed to implement a system with a background API that can be pinged by websites through a method that hasn’t even been made yet… concept of a thing to your software that communicates with this other concept of a thing or else we fined into the ground effective in less than one year… Good luck.
Pssst Microsoft… pssst Apple… Don’t worry we’ll send you exactly what to put in your code. Just keep it to yourselves tho
How I understood it would be that the api could be implemented as an API contained within your os. So it would be more equivalent to comparing it to a system call like open file or allocate memory than a REST API.
Lmao does the register really cite Reddit as a source? it was a cesspool off missinformation on the CA bill, I doubt it’s any better on the CO one.
Why not link to the actual bill like it does for other states?
It’s also wildly disingenuous to lump the bills that require verification and those that just require an OS store an unverified age and return it, but that’s what I’d expect from reddit.
I don’t want either. And it’s a slippery slope to the next stage, and the next. Eventually we will have no control over what we own and zero privacy.
A local API is slippery nipples to a survailance state who knew.
Why use a computer at all, it’s the first step towards mass surveillance, better go back to the abacus!
Why use a computer at all, it’s the first step towards mass surveillance, better go back to the abacus!
This but unironically
… and I’m grateful for that but maybe we can finally decouple from OEM for OSes? Maybe could JUST buy a computer and not be forced an OS on it?
Sure I admit it feels nice to unwrap a new device, turn it on, set up few options and use it. Yet, the alternative it to turn it on, plug a USB drive on it, turn it on, set up few options, wait for 15min tops for installation to proceed and use it.
It’s actually a ~15min difference but it could bring so many good practices.
Linux for personal use can be undependable. I have a use case where I don’t mind configuring stuff, but once setup I need that shit to mf work every time all the time and it not working results in direct loss and depending on when potentially substantial loss. I say this as an avid linux user.
if you run into stability issues on Linux the problem is either your distro or you.
Its really a shame every desktop distro has that problem, then.
Sometimes, you install updates, even on your LTS branch distro, and stuff gets really broken. You can roll back, but can sometimes have to fiddle with the computer to get it working enough to where you can do that.
If you’ve got a mission critical workflow, you essentially need 2 computers, regardless of the OS you’re using.
Case in point: Typing from a spare Surface Pro that I installed Ubuntu and some support drivers on for the touchscreen. Some update broke the touchscreen drivers, and I needed a keyboard and a lot of googling to repair them.
If this had happened on Windows, someone likely could’ve taken it to their repair shop or to Microsoft. Sadly, these days even Microsoft might’ve dropped any user aid.
I really don’t understand what the value they see in putting age checks on operating systems. Like where is this coming from? Who whispered in their ear that OS age checks are something that need to be done?
Palantir
They have unique digital fingerprints for everyone already pretty much, but they are not linked to official government IDs so there is still uncertainty I think over identification.
This makes everyone’s digital fingerprint linked on a government ID. Voila, now every person in America is known by Palantir and the government at all times (more or less). Great for genocide and targeting your political opponents and voters to set up sham elections.
It also tries to stop poors who don’t have drivers licenses in America from organizing as they can’t verify.
Now with Flock surveiling most of the US: Jaywalking or littering and a Democrat or worse, leftist? You are a criminal and intelligible to vote. Incoming trump 75+% win for an illegal 3rd term or Vance.
Thiel famously said “what if there was a way, through technology, to achieve your political goals without having to beg and plead to convince people who will never agree with you anyway”
Just want to clarify something about your comment since it feels like you have not had a chance to read the law yet.
(this is in reference to the Cali law but I am told the Colorado one is basically identical). The Cali law does not, in any way, require ID verification, it only requires that a parent attest to the age of their child when setting up an account for them.
This is not my argument for this exact law or any of these laws. I just want to make sure we all understand what we are talking about before going for the pitchforks.
From what I can tell, the ‘age’ part is misdirection. They want to restrict computer use to the “good” people, to make it “safer”.
Using age restrictions first allows legislation to be passed “for the children” using the idea of potential harm to theoretical children. However, in practice, legislators expect the implementation of the age check to be capable of checking anything else they want to about your identity, as a prerequisite for access. Probably using a combination of face scans and ID scans.
This is just the slippery slope argument.
The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.
California, as of today, does not require any kind of verification to install an OS (how it’s always been).
This law gets passed, now they require “attestation”.
A year or two from now, they’re gonna push for for actual age verification.
A year or two after that, the government will make a new law saying that your drivers license is no longer a valid form of identification, they’re gonna need a retina scan or some other form of “bio” identification.
Next thing you know, you’ll be pressing your dick imprint on your PC’s automated Cock-Scanner-v4 encryption tray that pops out of your laptop like a cd-rom drive every time you need to check your email.
Slippery slope, indeed.
Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn’t disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.
Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy.
What do you think their intentions are, and why?
The intentions for the law?
AB 1043 offers a scalable, privacy-first approach that helps keep kids safe while holding tech companies accountable.
-Assemblymember Wicks
This ia a quote directly from the author of the bill link for reference.
Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is “are they being truthful?” But that is a question that people will have to answer for themselves.
There are SOOOOOO many ways to implement age verification checks. And this is one of the worst. What is wrong with people
People responding to this are right about their actual intentions, but yeah. I think if you wanted to go about doing this the right way it would be an “I’m an adult” or a “this device is primarily used by a child” checkmark that could be locked down behind an administrative password.
That’s it. That’s all you really need if your intention was actually just makeing sure kids couldn’t wander into a part of the internet not made for them. Everything else, verification, that’s just surveillance bullshit being bolted on top.
But that is effectively what this bill does, just rather than a check box it is a date entry. There is no verification requirement. Only indication (attestation).
Respectfully I disagree. What I’m describing here is a checkmark. It’s a flag that gets turned on presumably by a parent and turned off presumably when the kid comes of age or gets their own computer or whatever. There is no date attached. There’s no personally identifiable information that your operating system is collecting and distributeing without your knowledge. At worst it’d allow people to be sorted into above and below certain ages, that’s it.
I get that what’s being proposed does not require verification (for now, way things are going I don’t necessarily expect that to stick). But even if your assuming good intent on the part of these law makers and corporations I still believe entering a date is too much of an invasion of privacy. If this is something we have to do (which I don’t believe it is but idiots seem to be forcing the issue) then it should be done with the least amout of data possible. That means a yea or nay on a binary checkbox.
Just to clarify the law does not allow your os to transmit your dob. Only your age bracket.
It’s because the goal is surveillance
