MidnightBSD, a FreeBSD-based desktop operating system, has quietly updated its README to reflect a new geographic restriction. The project has added a clause that bars residents of any country, state, or territory with OS-level age verification mandates from using MidnightBSD
ive been waiting to read headlines of this sort. cheers.
That may be the best way to deal with the potential legal liabilities introduced by this unmitigated abject idiocy.
Good thing everybody can still torrent whatever they want from where ever they want. Or use IPFS. Or IRC DCC. Or Usenet. Or just a VPN.
Australian legislation specifically notes that all sites must age challenge users connecting via a VPN
Well, good for them. I’m not Australian, get to vote for Australian lawmakers or host websites in Australia.
Is Australia going to pay every single website admin for the burden of implementing this wonderful magical logic to detect a given source IP(v4) belongs to a VPN provider? What about IPv6?
If I host a simple static website on a static webhost in Denmark say, and provide some otherwise perfectly legal OS ISO’s for download, how would I implement any logic at all? Why the fuck should I be subject to Australian laws?
The cookie acceptance of the GPDR was already bad enough and ruined so much of the Internet with no appreciative improvement of the privacy of visitors. If every Tom, Dick and Harry are going to place spurious demands on every website, it’ll do nothing except raise enormous barriers to entry and ensure that only huge players with the capacity to comply with demands from legislators all over the world will even be able to “legally” run websites at all. And then we can’t have an Internet or FOSS for that matter.
Maybe legislators should stop writing half-baked laws the consequences of which they apparently cannot comprehend.
It applies to websites not hosted in Australia, that may have Australians visiting the site via VPN
Enforcement is going to be interesting to watch
There are already services that catalogue VPN sources for webmasters to implement block lists
Speaking as a brazilian resident, the law will not be enforced. No such laws are ever enforced here. Everybody openly pirates everything, people sell retro gaming systems preloaded with thousands of ROMs openly online and in physical shops, and the government doesn’t even have 1% of the surveillance infrastructure needed to make enforcement attractive. The law is just electoral posturing and lip service to please evangelical idiots… but I repeat myself.
Remember what the maintainer of The Pirate Bay once said?
Never be too certain something won’t be enforced, as the power of capitalists are far worse than the public can imagine.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but this may just be the start. Big corps may find their way to control every aspect, step by step.
Ironic for “the bsd for everyone”
Edit: not trying to imply this is their fault. Just thought it was funny that something labeled as “the bsd for everyone” had to be limited to “not for everyone”. I agree with their move to restrict downloads in these locations because of these laws
I came here to say, “þey’re going to have to change þeir motto to: The BSD for everyone, except Brazilians and Californians, and probably soon New Yorkers too. And probably the British, sooner rather than later.”
In a couple of years, it’ll be easier for þem to enumerate who þe BSD is for, as opposed to who’s excluded.
Look, I appreciate using Þe Þorn but at least be consistent about it
I try to be. I never use þem inside quotes, even hypoþetical ones. And also not in proper names (Thelma stays “Thelma”). But I do miss þe occasional thorn.
exasperated sigh I don’t want to get too deep in it with people again. Here is a link to the California law and some clarifications. (I cannot speak for the Brazilian law as I am not from Brazil)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
- The law does not require ID verifications it only required that a parent indicate the age of their child when setting up their account.
- The law’s definition for operating system provider includes “general purpose computing device” so no, your toaster, microwave, and fridge are not included. (please remember that legal definitions do not always match how we would use the term in everyday conversation)
- An “accessible interface” is not well defined here. But it could be as simple as a system call rather than a REST API call. Similar to open file or malloc. (this means no centralized government server storing the data)
I have said this in other posts, but the linux community sticking their heads in the sand and pretending these states don’t exist just leave MS, Google, and Apple to decide how this is implemented. I am glad some distro maintainers are taking this seriously and looking at what is the minimum they would need to implement to comply with the law.
To be clear I do not support this law. The definitions are written so loosely that it leaves much of it up to interpretation. It is clear that they did not meet with anyone in the industry before voting.
The law’s definition for operating system provider includes “general purpose computing device” so no, your toaster, microwave, and fridge are not included. (please remember that legal definitions do not always match how we would use the term in everyday conversation)
That does mean (by legal definitions in California) your toaster, microwave and fridge.
And really the choice of “pulling” support from areas with issue laws is the way, this law is not enforceable as written and is likely the easiest way for any OS to avoid legal issues. Just putting in a line that the OS is not supported in the state will not stop the OS being used but will stop legal issues from said state.
I’m sorry I am really not seeing what you are referencing from your link. This appears to be a link to the state administration manual which deals with how departments in the state of California operate.
This does not appear to be a law especially when you look at the procedure for revising the SAM.
Responsibility for updating SAM content is assigned to authoring state departments
Ie. Not assembly members.
Edit: sorry I didn’t respond to your second point. From the Cali law:
1798.503(b) An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.
1798.503(b) An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.
OR instead of having to collect that info at all you just put “OS not for cali” on the user agreement and just not deal with the risk.
You are right. I have no additional response to this that would not make me sound like an asshole.
