Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #86738

Re: Linux to be illegal in California?

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-05-15 23:44, Rich wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>> Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a écrit :
>>> I heard systemd added an optional age field a
>>> specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
>>
>> I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
>> didn't took care of it because:
>> - The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't
>>    be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
>>    from themselves forever.
>> - I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
>>    verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
>>    everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
>>    me to revert any option they put in place?
> 
> Your distro won't.
> 
> But, in typical politician methodology, there's a longer term "game
> plan" here, and this is just the first part of a "boil the frog" [1] game.
> 
> Step one (which is happening now) is to get statutes setup such that
> the OS is supposed to "know your age" and "report that age (or your
> 'age range') to app's that ask it for that data".  Beyond that, the
> current statutes do little if anything.  And, of course, there's not
> (yet) any requirement for the "age" you tell the OS to have any basis
> in reality, so you can be six or sixty and tell your OS you are 102 and
> the OS is just fine telling apps that ask "user is over 18".
> 
> A next likely step along the "boil the frog" path is for someone
> somewhere to finally realize that providing the "ability to ask the OS"
> does no good if the apps are not "required to ask".  So the next step
> of legislation could be a requirement that all apps (and written
> broadly enough that "Firefox" on a desktop computer may be able to be
> considered an "app").  So now "Firefox" on your desktop has to ask your
> desktop OS what your age range is.
> 
> The next step could then be that "web browsers" must report the "age
> range" signal they are required to ask for to every website that you
> visit.
> 
> Then, once browsers are reporting "age range" to every website, the
> next logical step along the path would be to require all websites to
> honor the "age range" signal and refuse to communicate "harmful
> content" to those who's age signal states they are below 18 years old
> (or 21 or whatever is picked as the "appropriate age").
> 
> And, then once the politicians figure out that presuming "truth in
> telling" of folks being asked "what's your age" by their OS means that
> six year old's can claim to be 102, they will institute some form of
> government credential authentication of each users age.  Cutting off
> one's ability to simply bypass the "age verification" bullshit by
> installing "age-range-d" and telling it you are 102.  You'll (or
> rather, age-range-d will) have to instead upload your government ID
> (drivers license or other govt.  id) to some govt server in order to
> receive some form of "token" that indicates you are "properly old
> enough".  Then your browser will have to deliver that token to every
> website so each website can then make a backend auth call to the govt
> authenticate service to verify the token's validity before it can
> serve you "harmful content".
> 
> Plus, given how politicians go, "harmful content" will begin as
> something like pornography, but then some kid will become indoctrinated
> in some cult somewhere, and suddenly, to "save the children" extreme
> content (but not porn) will also be "harmful" and be behind the age
> gate.  Then, later, some kid will burn their fingers by repeating what
> they saw on a youtube video about repairing a broken lithium ion
> battery and suddenly "think of the children" will age gate "battery
> repair videos".
> 
> Meanwhile, because this government credential that might be used to verify
> your age is sent to every website you visit, so they can decide what to
> serve or not, is also a unique tracking identifier of you and everywhere
> you go online, it will be scarfed up by the advertisers as their
> ultimate wet-dream tracking identifier, and scarfed up by the government
> censors as their ultimate wet-dream identifier for deanonymizing
> everyone on the internet so they can censor all those "harmful things"
> people say about stuff all the time online.

Aye.

> 
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200
  Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-12 08:57 -0700
    Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-12 18:16 +0000
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 04:52 +0000
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:25 +0000
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:40 +0200
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:49 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:55 +0000
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-13 19:13 +0000
                Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:41 +0200
                Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:05 +0000
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:01 +0000
    Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:38 +0200
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 13:12 +0000
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:57 +0000
          Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 18:26 +0000
            Re: Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:44 +0200
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-14 03:31 +0000
  Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-12 20:45 +0000
    Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 06:18 +0200
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-13 00:24 -0400
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:55 +0100
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:54 +0000
      Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-13 17:15 +0000
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-14 05:44 +0200
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-15 20:29 +0000
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 13:50 -0700
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-15 21:44 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:42 +0200
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 03:04 -0400
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:15 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 08:56 +0000
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 00:37 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:16 +0000
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:35 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-16 10:59 +0100
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:44 +0200
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:13 +0000
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:29 +0000
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:41 +0200
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:32 +0000
        Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-15 22:54 +0200
          Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-15 23:56 -0400
            Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:47 +0200
              Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:11 +0000
                Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:24 +0200
  Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100

csiph-web