Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #85181

Re: Age verification

Show all headers | View raw

On 2026-04-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <10qm53v$18740$1@dont-email.me>, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>Anthk <bozo@dev.null> wrote:
>>>> What's your opinion of this?
>>>
>>>If you go read the actual text of the proposed laws (and/or the ones 
>>>that have been enacted) you'll realize that while they are broad (as in 
>>>a dragnet style breadth) they were clearly also written by an idiot [1] 
>>>who believes that the only computers that exist in the world are 
>>>Android or iOS cellphones, the only OS'es are Android and/or iOS, and 
>>>the only way anyone installs software on any computer is via an "App 
>>>Store".  While the definition of 'computer' and/or 'OS' is broad enough 
>>>to capture anything (even the microcontroller inside your kitchen 
>>>microwave) the remainder of the text clearly is biased towards "all 
>>>computers anyone ever uses are cellphones".
>> 
>> Yep.  You are correct.  And what it means is that everything is fine.
>> 
>> It is clearly directed at cellphones - i.e., walled gardens, where, as you
>> say, the owner/user is *not* admin - and there is clearly a need for a fix
>> in that market segment.  The problem of kids and social media addiction is
>> real (as much as us folks would want to deny it)
>
> True, but at the same time, this also /very much/ appears to be a 
> parental failure in not being willing to endure the crying and wailing 
> that would occur in limiting or remvoing their children's access/use of 
> the same.  Instead of parenting, they want the state to impose a 
> particular parenting angle, so they avoid being the bad guy when little 
> jonny loses his access.
>
>> But the point is, all the hubbub you see in the various Linux forums is
>> unnecessary.  Because we A) Aren't affected by it (Except see below) and B)
>> Aren't their target.
>
> Much of the hubub is likely around the fact that, in far too many 
> instances throughout history, the "first version" of some political 
> bodies ask was also never the final version.  Once they get the Overton 
> window shifted such that v1 is acceptable, they then return to pushing 
> the Overton window some more so they can obtain v2, and so on.  So much 
> of the hubub isn't directly meeting this statute, but is coming from a 
> standpoint of "what will the require next, when this turns out to not 
> work like they expect".
>
>> It may come to there needing to be some config file in the OS (whether that
>> be Linux, Windows, Mac OS, whatever) saying that the user is 60 years old,
>> just so that they can claim compliance (and not get hassled by the
>> authorities).  The file could come pre-installed when the OS ships.
>
> Granted, the current California statute is so broad enough that simply 
> having /etc/user-age-range on a Linux machine, formatted in an agreed 
> upon standard format, would very likely be sufficient to meet the 
> /letter/ of the law (whether courts later decide it meets the /intent/ 
> is a different story).
>
>> BTW, if a parent wants to give their kid a Linux box but doesn't trust them
>> to be admin, then of course, that would work too.  The parent could put the
>> kid's real age into the above-described file and keep the root pw to
>> themselves.
>
> Yes, if they give one, the parent needs to keep the root password to 
> themselves if they want to have any hope of "age restrictions" 
> remaining in place.  But, for the technical children, they will simply 
> install their own linux on a machine and remove any restrictions for 
> themselves.  Trying to do this at the "OS" level is not workable unless 
> Cory Doctorow's "The Coming War on General Computation" 
> (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Computation) 
> actually comes to pass.  *Everyone* must be a mere user, with some 
> other /entity/ being the actual owner of the computer, for this to 
> really work in the end.
>
>> So, really, there's nothing to worry about here.
>
> Until *they* (the idiot's pushing this) find that try #1 did not 
> achieve the desired effect, and they return for try #2 and #3 and #4, 
> and eventually, yes, Linux is swept up in their dragnet, if for no 
> other reason that /they/ have no idea that alternate, free software, 
> OS'es even exist or that some technical users actually install those 
> alternate OS'es.

Thanks for that link.  That page is pretty insightful.

After said idiots realize that /etc/user-age-range-... makes said
idiots' attempt to restrict users access moot, one of the next
steps, maybe around #3 to #7 or so, would be to require that
user's age to be embedded into a state-issued, cryptographically
secure ID.  Such an ID might be called a digital birth
certificate, digital passport, digital internet driver license,
or something similar.

Each user would be required to provide the state-issued ID to
access anything over the internet.  OS's might be required to
require such an ID for login.  Many/Most/All apps would be
required to verify the user's state-issued ID with the state-run
clearinghouse.  It would eventually become the CCP's social
credit score system, perhaps with a few steroids added.

That's a part of what's wrong with this effort.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

Thread

Age verification Anthk <bozo@dev.null> - 2026-04-02 13:44 +0000
  Re: Age verification Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-04-02 17:42 +0200
    Re: Age verification Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-02 18:14 +0000
      Re: Age verification "Worst Case"@dizum.com - 2026-04-02 23:41 +0200
        Re: Age verification Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-02 23:08 +0000
          Re: Age verification "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-03 03:11 +0200
            Re: Age verification The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-03 09:51 +0100
              Re: Age verification "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-03 13:21 +0200
    Re: Age verification The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 19:38 +0100
  Re: Age verification Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-02 16:22 +0000
    Re: Age verification gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-04-02 16:54 +0000
      Re: Age verification Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-04-02 18:10 +0000
        Re: Age verification Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-04-02 19:41 +0000
          Re: Age verification Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-02 20:48 +0000
      Re: Age verification The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 19:41 +0100
    Re: Age verification The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 19:40 +0100
  Re: Age verification "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-04-02 21:54 +0200
  Re: Age verification kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2026-04-07 00:08 -0500

csiph-web