System76 on Age Verification Laws
blog.system76.com
blog.system76.com
> Some of these laws impose requirements on System76 and Linux distributions in general. The California law, and Colorado law modeled after it, were agreed in concert with major operating system providers. Should this method of age attestation become the standard, apps and websites will not assume liability when a signal is not provided and assume the lowest age bracket. Any Linux distribution that does not provide an age bracket signal will result in a nerfed internet for their users.
> We are accustomed to adding operating system features to comply with laws. Accessibility features for ADA, and power efficiency settings for Energy Star regulations are two examples. We are a part of this world and we believe in the rule of law. We still hope these laws will be recognized for the folly they are and removed from the books or found unconstitutional.
Anyways, it feels like all sides of the political spectrum are trying to strip away any semblance of anonymity or privacy online both in the US and abroad. No one should have to provide any personal details to use any general computing device. Otherwise, given the pervasive tracking done by corporations and the rise of constant surveillance outdoors, there will be nowhere for people to safely gather and express themselves freely and privately.
I agree. I also agree with S76 that some laws regarding how an operating system intended for wide use should function are acceptable. How would you react to this law if the requirement was only that the operating system had to ask the user what age bracket it should report to sites? You get to pick it, it isn't mandatory that it be checked, and it doesn't need to be a date, just the bucket. Is that still too onerous?
I ask because I feel like if we don't do something, the trajectory is that ~every website and app is going to either voluntarily or compulsorily do face scans, AI behavior analysis, and ID checks for their users, and I really don't want to live in that world.
Instead, the service should be telling your device the nature of the content. Then, if the content is for adults and you're not one, your parents can configure your device not to display it.
You're going to get that, anyway. Platforms want to sell their userbases as real monetizable humans. Governments want to know who says and reads what online. AI companies want your face to train their systems they sell to the government, and they want to the be the gatekeepers that rank internet content for age appropriateness and use that content as free training material.
Age verification across platforms is already implemented as AI face and ID scans. This is where we're already at.
Any scheme that doesn’t require this won’t get pushback from me.
As an alternative: I already have government-issued ID and that branch of government already has my private info; have it give me a cryptographic token I can use to prove my age bracket to the root of trust module in my computer; then allow the OS to state my age to third parties when it needs to with a protocol that proves it has seen the appropriate government token but reveals nothing else about my identity.
Other alternatives are possible.
Like - you don't make it illegal to not do age attestations, but you provide a mechanism to encourage it.
You get a certification you can slap on your website and devices stating you meet the requirements of a California Family-Friendly Operating System or whatever. Maybe that comes with some kind of tax break, maybe it provides absolution in the case of some law being broken while using your OS, maybe it just means you get listed on a website of state-recommended operating systems.
That certification wouldn't necessarily have to deal with age attestation at all. It could just mean the device/OS has features for parents - built-in website filtering, whatever restrictions they need. Parents could see the label and go "great, this label tells me I can set this up in a kid-safe way."
Hell, maybe it is all about age certification/attestation. Part of that certification could be when setting it up, you do have to tell it a birthdate and the OS auto-applies some restrictions. Tells app stores your age, whatever.
The point is an OS doesn't want to participate they don't have to. Linux distros etc would just not be California Family-Friendly Certified™.
I wouldn't have to really care if California Family-Friendly Certified™ operating systems are scanning faces, IDs, birth certificates, collecting DNA, whatever. I'd have the choice to use a different operating system that suits my needs.
It's pointless, does not increase security, does increase complexity of every interaction, and introduces a lot of weird edge cases.
What i want is full anonymity enshrined in law, while at the same time giving parents, not governments, but parents, options to limit what their children can do on the internet.
The only reason they'd _have_ to do that is government laws making them do so. When the law is vague around what age verification is, if one company decided to do ID verification, now any site that doesn't might not be doing 'enough' in the eyes of the law (it'd come down to a court case if not specifically defined).
Though it may seem more convenient to just do it at the os level (though really the browser level would make more sense with a required header/cookie no?), I'd be shocked if you don't see it expanded in the future to be more than a checkbox.
What's the point in doing any of this if it doesn't result in materially better outcomes?
The only laws the government should pass regulating software running on someones computer are laws protecting those consumers from the companies writing that software. For example, anti-malware/anti-spyware.
The government has no business telling a random company that their software needs to report my age, whether it's unverified and self-reported or not.
In this case, it's a slippery slope; if we're normalized to this, what other incursions into our 1A rights to free speech, religious freedom and public gathering will we allow?
And I say religious freedom, because these kinds of laws are largely peddled by religious folk or people who otherwise have been deeply influenced by early American Puritan religious culture.
I, nor my children, should be forced to subject to such religiously-motivated laws. I can decide for myself and for my child what is appropriate.
I, nor my children, cannot be compelled to enter personal information into a machine created by someone who is also illegally compelled to require it.
I, nor my children, can be compelled to avoid publicly gathering on the internet just because we don't want to show identification and normalize chilling surveillance capitalism.
I thought this was fucking America.
Isn't that what the CA law is?
Isn't it just pointless?
I'm getting upset by face scan creep too. I do not like it. No sir. But mandating a self-reporting mechanism feels about as useful as DNT cookies, or those "are you 18? yes/no" gates on beer sites.
Yes, because (a) it wouldn't do anything, and (b) it would take about 5 seconds for the morons who push this stuff to start whining about that fact, and using the fact that "Society(TM) has mandated this and people are avoiding it" to demand effective verification, which would be a huge disaster.
They won't be placated by anything short of total victory, and if you give them anything, you're just enouraging them.
The point remains though. They have zero way to enforce it if we choose to not comply. Just saying.
The problem is that the comparison falls flat. ADA does not sniff for birth date and surrender that data to others. One has to look at things at a cohesive unit, e. g. insecure bootloaders by Microsoft surrendering data to others. It seems as if they try to make computers spy-devices. That in itself is suspicious. Why should we support any such move? Some laws are clearly written by lobbyists.
So it is Microsoft, Google and Apple pushing for this.
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.
Seems exactly like the useless process fixation that Abundance advocates abhor.
What was the legislative history for the California law? Who sponsored it, and who are their backers? Is there some coordinated effort by surveillance state proponents?
Generally any actual surveillance state people would be tag-along donors to the org.
It's not this or that political party, your neighbors simply don't share your values. Maybe you don't agree with their values either — like to what degree we should be ceding privacy in favor of fighting child exploitation on the internet. Child protection arguments work because it is a compass to the true feelings of your neighbors.
If you see politics through this lens then the 'democratic backsliding' that has been universal across the world for the past two decades is entirely unsurprising.
Vae Victus.
The problem with this argument is that everyone agrees with protecting children.
"Think of the children" arguments are the legislator's fallacy: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this.
In reality there are alternative means to accomplish any given goal, and the debate is about what should be done, because no one benefits from using methods that cost more than they're worth.
Well, almost no one. The opportunists who drape themselves in the cloak of "safety" when they want to have the government mandate the use of their services or use it as an excuse to monopolize markets or establish a chokepoint for surveillance and censorship do benefit from the machinations that allow them to screw the majority of the population. But the majority of the population doesn't.
_register typewriters_
>he who slays the dragon
никто тут этого кина не видел и никто не понял какого в сраку дракона в какую позу.
у меня тоже знакомый из СССР->США->Канада прокатился в 90-ых. вы не из академгородка?
They can provide tools, sure. But restricting adults because some parents fail at parenting is insane. That is how a totalitarian state grows: by demanding the power to monitor and control every individual.
If you cannot control your children, that is your fault. And if that is the case, you should think twice before having kids.
Cops to track what people did on the internet, checking every image to ensure it's not pornographic, or every transaction online, to ensure it's not criminal!
Sounds great! Let's just start by rolling out the program to target elected officials and their families as a trial. If every congressional or senate representative wants to undergo a few years of scrutiny to make sure the system works well, maybe the people will follow gladly.
So alcohol is more like a gambling website.
And, just to be clear on this topic, I think these age restriction laws are mostly bullshit, but I'm deeply against the concept of putting all the responsabiliy of raising children onto the parents.
There is not a lot of safeguarding against this in the real world tbh. At the very least I think the OS or internet age verification is not the place to start improving this.
Just because you're an idiot at 18 doesn't mean you are one for life.
> so that's why we designed schools that should compensate even for dumb parents.
Does that actually work?
> against the concept of putting all the responsabiliy of raising children onto the parents.
Then how do you feel about parents requiring a license before they have a child? If you wish to invite yourself into their responsibilities shouldn't you also invite yourself into their bedroom first?
Even with schools in place, the basic responsibility for raising children still belongs to the parents. Schools can support, educate, and compensate to some extent, but they cannot replace parental responsibility.
I also see far too much awful news — in my country, Korea, for example — about terrible parents harassing school teachers because their children are out of control.
All this to say is while I think the OP is mean about it they but are not wrong. The law argues heavily the parent is supreme at least in the US. But this specific law push the responsiblity of being the supreme authority off of parents. I know you don't like that concept but I think it is very easy to argue that any other model is going to be unacceptable to a pluraity of parents. Thats not to be confused with a parent is responsible for everything there child does because thats not true. But the consquence of that thinking is that children ultimately have some responsiblity in the things they do over the parent, which I think the authors of this law would be sweating at such a statement.
Personally I think the biggest issue for children is impulse control around social media and to be frank I don't think Adults are necessiarly able to deal with the onslaught of endless feed short form video content either. I don't think our brains are built against it very well. I don't know what the solution is but I think what made youtube without shorts different from tiktok is the endless scroll nature. The added friction actually protected peoples conscious and something to add a minimal friction to interactions would actually be massively beneficial to society at large
I saw this a lot in college. Kids that didn’t have any freedom or autonomy while living at home went wild in college. They had no idea how to self-regulate. A lot of them failed out. Those who didn’t had some rough years. Sheltering kids for too long seems to do more harm than good. At least if they run into issues while still children, their parents can be there to help them through it so they can better navigate on their own once they move out.
And if the person is high energy, then that energy needs to be channeled.
You can also ask if the rate of this occurrence is increasing or decreasing.
(And the proper way to do "less long" is to slowly loosen up over time.)
Sounds like you got the first but not the second, which must have been tough. Hope you're doing better now.
> I've seen it go both ways where children with freedom [turn bad] and sheltered kids turn [good]
So you've seen it one way, as in, each approach leading to one specific outcome? "Both ways" would be sheltered leading to different outcomes in different cases, or unsheltered leading to different outcomes in different cases
I don't feel like I've been sheltered. My parents literally proposed that I drink some alcohol and encouraged that I go out partying at some point. Both things still don't interest me. (At least they didn't tell me to smoke, lol. But alcohol seems to be considered normal and potentially even healthy in small doses so they thought I should try it.) Online, I later learned that their opinion was that I'll just not look up things which I don't want to see, and in my case that has been true. I'm sorry to tell you I never had a porn addiction
Someone else pointed out that such anecdotes are survivorship bias: you might not see the people that didn't turn out alright. In my case that's certainly true, I'm not sure that I know anyone who didn't turn out okay. We take different paths through life but if you can provide for yourself and dependents, and are happy most of the time, I'd count that as success (also dependent on age: I'm not counting that my 90yo grandpa is currently often unhappy due to bad health)
Putting onanism in the same sentence as drug abuse really weakens your argument.
> I can see that there will be programs that run on general purpose computers and peripherals that will even freak me out. So I can believe that people who advocate for limiting general purpose computers will find receptive audience for their positions. But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters.
Full talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
it really boils down to this sadly, and it should be pretty obvious shouldn't it?
i'm finding it befuddling that even technical audiences seem to resist connecting those dots, but strong motivated reasoning is at play: these are audiences that will often feel it will be them who will be in control, and they're also emotionally nudged by the idea of child safety
But there's a bigger issue than just what software you're allowed to run on your own computer. What's really insidious is the combination of the corporate and government interest. If every server tracks how old you are, it's a short step to tracking more information. Eventually it's a mandatory collection of metadata on everyone that uses a computer (which is every human). Something both corporations and governments would love.
You were worried about a national ID? No need. We'll have national metadata. Just sign in with your Apple Store/Google Store credentials. Don't worry about not having it, you can't use a computer without it. Now that we have your national login, the government can track everything you do on a computer (as all that friendly "telemetry" will be sent to the corporate servers). Hope you didn't visit an anti-Republican forum, or you might get an unfortunate audit.
These days, exposing an immature brain to the raw internet is basically just handing the brain and personality over to be molded by large corporations and algorithms.
And humans have never been rational, self-contained actors that self-educate perfectly when exposed to information, converging on an objectively good and constructive worldview. Quite the opposite.
Humans develop in relation to one another, increasingly in relation to algorithms, and sometimes become messed up, and sometimes those mess-ups would have been avoidable had relations or exposure been different.
In fact I would say you as a parent is not doing your job if you are not trying to make sure a 12 year old isn't pulled into, say, an anorexia rabbit hole.
Whether that is best done through making sure exposure doesn't happen, or through exposure and education, will depend on the child and parent (and society) in question. What worked best for a highly rational self-reliant geek teen may simply be a disaster for another human. And what worked for an upper class highly educated family may not work for a poor family with alcoholized parents or working 18 hours a day to make ends meet.
And parents are not perfect -- if all parents were perfect, there also would be no alcoholics and drug addicts or poverty or war. But people are imperfect, and it's natural to make laws to mitigate at least the worst effects of that. (Again, haven't read this specific law proposal, but found the worldview of OP a bit naive.)
You make the case of todays internet being insuitable for young children. But has this been different, ever, maybe apart from the very first days of the internet? While access through phones has reshaped the internet fundamentally, I'd propose that it has always been dangerous. When I was 12, a single wrong click could destroy your machine, or lead to a physical bill being sent to my parents home (which has happened), or lead to most disturbing pictures and videos.
So I think it's not the case that we should allow kids completeley unsupervised access (like it always has been), but it's also naive to think that we can regulate our way out of this (on state or household-level, like it always has been).
Even later when the computer was in my room, I still had to go look for the creepy shit, it didn't appear in my email inbox.
Kids this age browse the internet through algoritmic apps built to maximise engagment in a corner on their bed in their room. Parental controls for most apps and operating systems are a fucking joke.
Amount of time spent and repeated exposure being the key.
The question is really what kind of human is raised, rather than raw exposure as such.
So for that reason things are different IMO than than 20 years ago.
Yes, of course some people would fall into internet forum rabbit holes 20 years ago, and papper-letter-friend-induced rabbit holes 100 years ago. But it did help that it was like 5% of the population instead of 95% of the population spending their time there.
Regarding your last point, I don't necessarily disagree (again I didn't check up on this law, I care more about the laws in my own country), but I think arguing against the law will go better if one does not display naivety when making the arguments
Don't say "it will be better if all kids are exposed to everything early" (it won't), instead say "the medicine will not work and anyway the side-effects are worse than the sickness it intends to cure" (if that is the case).
Even as late as the mid-aughts the internet was mostly nerdy technical information, real people sincerely discussing various topics, and the very worst thing was a little bit of (mostly still-image) porn if you were looking for it.
Kids back then weren't targeted by a stream of continuously A/B tested algorithmic content intended to tell them what to think and shape their brains. Overwhelming evidence exists that social media (as it exists today) is bad for the mental health of young people (and probably adults, too, but at least adults have the presence of mind and lack of social pressure to delete Facebook).
And why are we getting concerned about "sharing private information with random web sites" when that's not the solution being discussed. The solution is a simple handshake:
service: Is the person assigned this device old enough to use this service?
idp proxy: yes|no
imo this is what is wrong with modern parenting. the reality does not care about the child's feelings and if it is old enough to have a screen with internet unattended it is old enough for anything
Maybe in the future, a governing body will try to age lock dissenting opinions with some crafty verbage
It's more like the rule that minors can't buy alcohol in bars - parents can still buy alcohol at the supermarket for their children, and sufficiently determined children can find some other adult to buy it for them.
Probably by the time you know how to install a virtual machine, you can handle the unrestricted internet.
It is in my view crazy and irresponsible to allow the government override the parents' decisions about what media their children can consume. It is guaranteed that this power will be abused.
it's true that kids are vulnerable to certain forms of content on the internet
it's also true that adults are vulnerable to certain forms of content on the internet
it's also true that governments cannot police "harmful content" on the internet effectively, or even meaningfully, if most people can easily surf the internet pseudonymously
it's also very true right now that what's on "social media" is very Sybill-vulnerable, and inordenately so right now with the advent of LLMs
what do you think the playbook will look like once there is some sort of tight OS level system that is enforced across the board to certify or verify information about the user?
do you think this level of coordination to push for identifying the user at all levels that is happening across the world in a matter of weeks is genuine concern for the kids alone?
Their ideas are deeply unhealthy for children and worst of all, lazily shift the responsibility of parenting from the parents to the state.
Many European countries have long had a culture of slowly increasingly responsibilities and freedoms to their children gradually, letting them slowly and safely test their boundaries. At least the proposed EU solution (for identity) tries to prevent overreach. The wholesale EU spying to “save the children”, which seems to be funded by the U.S. is a different topic and we need to continue to fight it tooth and nail.
The insidiousness lies with major tech companies and their pursuit of eyeballs on screens. The Internet was supposed to be something we used to learn, gain knowledge and connect. They took the internet over, bastardized it and made deeply addictive apps and games to keep you watching ads regardless of age.
These age checks are just for data collection and spying to sell the data to the highest bidder, which is likely governments in order to control and herd their populations.
The reason for this is easy to understand in the context of AI. In the future the only valuable asset will be a data and the access to that data.
In the future, any app will be built, replicated, deployed and maintained by AI. Apps, websites, especially B2B apps - their days are numbered.
If my business needs a billing system tailored to my business in the future, I’ll describe it and have an AI built and maintain it. That is not that far away in relative terms.
Our goal collectively (as technology advocates) is to make sure that this consolidation of personal data doesn’t happen. If personal AI is to be built, then the user should have full ownership and away from the spying eyes of groups like Palantir and the NSA. They cannot be trusted. The Jews learnt that catastrophically in Germany in the 1940’s putting their trust in a government that became authoritarian and evil.
What is digital will never die and what is digitally given cannot be taken back.
If the US actually gave a flying FUCK about "protecting the children," the current administration would be making good on Trump's promise to release the Epstein files -- as now ordered by a federal law passed by a overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress -- and prosecuting everyone involved.
We see what's really going on. We can't do anything about it, apparently, but we see.
Of course, there will be stories of smart kids doing amazing things with access to vast troves of information, but the average story is much sadder.
The EU is working on a type of digital ID that an age-restricted platform would ask for, which only gives the platform the age information and no further PII.
Companies (not talking about system76) amazingly always find the shittyest interpretations of their obligations to make sure to destroy the regulations intention as much as they can. The cookie popups should have been an option in the browser asking the user whether they want to be tracked and platforms were meant to respect this flag. Not every site asking individually, not all this dark pattern annoyance. It's mind-blowing that that was tanked so hard.
Protecting kids is just the PR reason, the real goal is requiring ID auth for every action taken on a computer. If we normalize it for downloading apps or using websites the next step is to authorize it for connecting to HTTPS at all and then the next step is requiring it to unlock your CPU cores.
If people don't push back on this now there is no world where we get out of 2030 without requiring government ID auth to install linux on your own computer not connected to the internet.
End to end silicon to server auth is absolutely possible and someone is working really hard to make it a reality.
Sure, it might start out that way, but once adoption reaches anything critical the PII will be required to squash free speech as soon as possible. But by then the interaction flow will be familiar, hardly anyone will even notice, never mind care.
The EU has the best frog boiling experts in the world.
Maybe pointing the obvious but things happen if enough people care about them or do not care to oppose them.
From my perspective speech became "more free" lately - meaning everybody says all kind of incorrect, wrong things without fear of retribution even if there are laws against some of those, because people just don't care.
So maybe we should also focus on teaching people what is free speech, why is it good for them, why they needed, rather than worry about some hypothetical mechanism that someone will prevent it.
Of course both can be done, but I find it a bit funny that if the focus in mostly on not having mechanisms to prevent free speech, we might still end up in a situation that there are no such mechanisms but on the other hand nobody speaks freely because they don't care or only stare at their tiktok.
The corona passports showed the way to achieve ultimate control of the population, and the EU digital wallet will be a permanent corona passport.
The public sheep, in their ignorance, are cheering this on, without knowing what will await them. It is our responsibility as technologists to fight this, and to educate the sheep.
I think you're missing the point they're trying to make. It's not that the problem isn't real, it's that the solution won't work. Kids will find a way around. They have a lot more free time than us.
Banning pubs from selling to minors doesn't work, but we should still do it, right?
Didn't regulating cigarettes kind of work?
I am not sure what time or country you are talking about but when I grew up (Germany in the 90s) we officially could only buy cigarettes from age 16 (or 18?) and 50% of my friends smoked. So that did absolutely nothing.
Later (I think, man it's been a while) the vending machines needed a driver's license or id to verify the age and guess what, as long as you had access to a single person over the age of 18 you could still get cigarettes.
Stepping away from the cigarette topic... I think mixing the two topics does not make sense.
First one is: Is there stuff on the internet that kids should not be exposed to without supervision? I don't have a strong opinion, I don't have kids. Probably not, but I am not even interested in discussing this
Second one is: Will some stupid laws like the mentioned ones help in any way? Maybe a little, probably not really and only for kids who don't find a workaround. Will they have catastrophic side effects and thus are not worth implementing for minimal gain? 100% yes.
Also, if what the OS does, is requiring to pick some number from 0 - 100 and date without doing any verification, everyone can lie. It has other flaws like not considering that many people can share accounts, some embedded devices with UI can no longer receive updates, etc. Honestly, if I thought for 30 minutes, I could list dozens of such problems. I doubt these laws can work efficiently enough.
For now this might sound like the least of evils, but are we sure that these idiot politicians won't come up with something even more insane after seeing the inefficiency of this?
-to both adults and children. What kind of worked for cigarettes was the huge tax so why not create a "mental health tax" based on the number of users x some addictiveness score and let meta either fix instagram, pay their users a therapy or pass the cost to them.
Instead this "protecting children" by giving them "degraded" experience will only motivate them to bypass the age verification and destroy the statistical evidence of the harm those platforms cause.
Everything online is virtual, and implementing surveillance in one area, almost always spreads, infecting everything else, until we've built 1984.
Could we perhaps regulate them to require that they be made less harmful for everyone?
> anything the reduces the power those companies have over our lives (and our politics)
If we're concerned about politics, I presume we're talking about the impact on adults, but these age-based restrictions are not intended to change anything for adults.
Well, surely because the government is full of investors in Meta and uses Meta for their propaganda, and possibly because the government wants more data to put on their databases that is used by ICE and other agencies.
That’s commerce. The regulatory target in the case is speech. We don’t do that here.
This all could've been avoided. Governments all over the world have been ringing the alarm bells about lack of self-regulation in tech and social media. And instead of doing even a minimum of regulation, anything to calm or assuage the governments, the entire industry went balls-to-the-wall "line go up" mode. We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late.
If you look back, it didn't have to be this way: - Governments told game publishers to find a system to handle age rating or else. The industry developed the ESRB (and other local systems), and no "or else" happened. - Governments told phone and smart device manufacturers to collectively standardize on a charging standard, almost everyone agreed on USB-C and only many years later did the government step in and force the lone outlier to play ball. If that one hadn't been stubborn, there wouldn't have been a law.
The industry had a chance to do something practical, the industry chose not to, and now something impractical (but you better find a way anyway, or else) will be forced upon them. And I won't shed a tear for the poor companies finally having to do something.
Why would we have to be blamed for a law written by some lobbyists? That makes no sense at all. There are of course some folks that are in favour of this because "of the children" but their rationale does not apply to me nor to many other people. Why should they be able to force people to surrender their data, with the operating system becoming a sniffer giving out private data to everyone else? That makes no sense.
Can't believe I'm reading this. I don't want age verification at all, whether it's self-imposed or not. I should be free to use whatever tools I want however I want.
Governments demanding computers enforce age is as dumb as governments demanding books, pen, and paper enforce age.
This is unrelated to industry. This is idiots running the government.
No, "we" really don't. I wrote software. It's free. You're welcome to use it, or not. Nobody is forcing my software on you. You are not allowed to tell me that the software I wrote, for free, and gave to you, for free, needs to have features that I don't care about.
You have an LLM now. I'm obsolete now, right? Do it. Build your nerfed distro, and make it popular. Oh, yeah... there isn't a single solitary disto built by an LLM, is there? Not even one. Wow. I wonder why...
Wrong. There was no choice. Any type of identification technology causes more problems than it solves. The right choice is to look for different approaches than identification technology for solving the problems. And as the article points out, the problems are best tackled with education and not with tech.
Uh, no.
Don't let phone manufacturers lock the bootloader on phones. Let the device owner lock it with a password if they decide to. Someone will make a child-friendly OS if there is demand. Tech-savvy parents should be able to install that on their kid's phone and then lock the bootloader.
What about non-tech-savvy parents?
There should be a toggle in the phone's settings to enable/disable app installation with a password, like sudo. This will let parents control what apps get installed/uninstalled on their kid's device.
But what about apps or online services that adults also use?
Apps and online services can add a password-protected toggle in their user account settings that enables child mode. Parents can take their child's phone, enable it, and set the password.
----
All it takes is some password-protected toggles. They will work better than every remote verification scheme.
The only problem with this solution is that it does not help certain governments build their global mass surveillence and propaganda apparatus, and tech companies can't collect more of your personal info to sell, and they can't make your devices obsolete whenever they want.
It also prevents the legitimization of app store monopolies because no centralized authority is needed to create or enforce a rating system. And there will always be apps that don't comply with a rating system out of privacy concerns (it leaks the user's age, which is just an extra data point to track you with), and then they'll eventually try to ban non-compliant apps from running on the device completely. That's what enforcing an age-based standard would take. And even then it would still not fulfill its (claimed) purpose that well.
Principle-wise, parenting should be the responsibility of parents, not governments or corporations. Those large organizations have their own agendas which are somewhat misaligned with the individual human being.
It's not enough to adhere to the OS age signal:
> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.
> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.
Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise.
The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, as it is implemented across platforms already. Not doing so opens you up to liability if someone ever writes "im 12 lol" on your app/platform.
The law requires "clear and convincing information", not merely "reason to believe". And since the law requires developers to rely on the provide age signal as the primary indicator of the user's age, developers are not incentivized to create a system that uses sophisticated data mining to derive an estimated age. If someone posts a comment on a YouTube video saying "I'm twelve years old and what is this?", that would absolutely not require YouTube to immediately start treating that account as an under-13 account.
This section targets spyware companies like Facebook, who already know damn well if the user is underage and this section forbids them from pretending they don't know.
It doesn't say you have to go and become Facebook.
This resonates so much with me. I don’t want to control my kids. I will never be able to protect them from everything. I hope I won’t be able because I want to die before them. I want them to be able to navigate in the world and have all the cognitive tools necessary to avoid being fooled. I want to rest in peace knowing they can in turn educate their own children. I want to trust them and be relieved that I can focus on some tasks of my own without needing to constantly worry about them.
(That doesn’t mean it is not a bad idea, and even perhaps unconstitutional for other reasons.)
And then there are the desperate attempts to cover actual pedophilia from the people in power. I'll never look at a politician or a so called member of the elites the same way again.
225.12.3.11 sends two requests, both with accept-language nl_BE
226.4.5.244 sends two requests, one with age bracket 13–15 and one with bracket 18+
Which group is easier to track people within a (NAT) household..
once vendors are forced to put on hooks to some enforced age verification system, it will creep everywhere like cookie banners which you cannot escape even in Antarctica
The whole point. Very well worded post. I weep for the all digital future.
What is almost more disturbing: at least some of the politicians will have been advised by consultants or lobbyists who know what they're advocating for. What's their game?
I hope things won’t go that way but I do think it’s likely they will.
A. If end users will mod their distros to send a "signal" (TBD?) to websites.
B. If end users will just grab a pirate OS with apps compiled to not care about age.
Hopefully the latest TAILS I downloaded is free of Big (over 18) Brother. And (A)
Or just compile, Gentoo and LFS style.
C. If pirates just take care of all this for friends and neighbors.
D. When, not if, this unconstitutional coercion is challenged in court and cancelled via petition. Remember Proposition 8?
The computers are not secure and they should only be able to run “verified” operating systems using attestation mechanisms. This was always where this was ultimately going. The idea has been fermenting since the DVD players had copy protections.
It’s the planet destroying asteroid. We know the trajectory, we always knew it was coming for us. But once you can see with the naked eye it’s too late to do anything.
This ties in nicely with the international movement to require ID to use social media.
Why is this an international movement? Suddenly, simultaneously, all over the Western world? It's enough to make on believe in conspiracies...
Sometimes kids hurt themselves through the use of the internet. And their parents lash out to blame someone [0]. And mainstream media pick up these stories. And the worry spreads. And more and more adults of voting age say that yeah, it's only reasonable to protect the kids from that internet monster, because kids are trusting and vulnerable, and won't somebody please think of the children. And they do not push back against age restriction campaigns. And so it goes...
As for the Western world, it generally moves in lockstep, doesn't it?
At the moment only some countries banning porn, social media and gambling. But how soon will I have to do it for a work app? And will I lose my job then if I refuse?
So much for privacy I guess, hence pulling out this protecting children BS that I saw too many kids at my urban CA highschool get stabbed to fall for. The fact these tactics still work, where we limit our toothless privacy protections that the firms that don't comply the state might eventually sue when someone with more money than I presses the Attorney General, but then dial it back marketing it as protecting children and people still buy it? Absurd these same people work at such bleeding edge tech firms but then again LLMs can do that busy work they actually are doing better most of the time....
This is 100% about spying and information harvesting from users who deserve privacy, and would be better off managing their own children without the help of the government.
Absolutely. I feel like adults frequently mistake kids’ lack of education for stupidity. Lack of education about something is a temporary condition, and kids have ridiculous amounts of time, energy, and motivation to quickly become expert about something they care about. Particularly in reaction to “you can’t do that.”
One possibility: These laws forget that 18 year olds have kid siblings. The 18 year olds need money and like everyone else, enjoy the prospects of easy money. The 18-year-old has a phone bill to pay. These are the makings of a black market. Kid sibling acts as a broker for the older sibling’s services among the kid’s classmates and collect a commission.
I do mind a lot of the data process. I do not want my id, personal preferences or any metadata of my self stored anywhere ever. And IF by some weird law some process has to store some data somewhere of me, i want to have very easy full access to it so i can delete it whenever i want. You can keep the process itself but anything else has to go.
Yes, i have a passport. Yes, it was verified and validated. No you may not know or store the color of my eyes.
I also do not want curious kids to be prosecuted for poking around. They should teach them and thank them for finding flaws.
Er, how does a child install a VM from a non-admin account?
> Or the child can simply re-install the OS and not tell their parents.
It's gonna be pretty easy to detect when the parent finds programs are missing/reset or the adult account they created can't log in with their password.
The California law seems entirely tame and sane, whereas the New York bill seems pretty heavy-handed and authoritarian. They are in no way similar to each other.
Do we really think parents will notice that a kid has installed a specific executable? The purpose of this law is to allow parents to outsource caring out which executables are safe, so there is no reason they would check.
Plus a kid can just live boot from a USB if the parent doesn't lock the bios, which would give them an ephemeral session to do whatever they want without the parent knowing unless caught-in-the-act.
More concerning than that is that it all doesn't seem because they care about teenagers and kids.
Now some 50-60yo politician who has never even created a folder in their desktop without help wants to dictate how I should have used my device?
Fuck'em
The internet you describe has been gone for a long time. The internet that replaced it is several degrees more harmful, to adults and children alike.
1) The issue doesn't matter much. Corporate takeover of the internet caused severe damage, but overrunning social media with LLM generated content is a mortal wound. Roughly the same number of humans will be using social media in 2030 as currently use CB radio. Remember near a fifth of the population was using CB radio at the peak in the late 70s. Its too little, too late, closing the barn door after the horses have left is pointless. Like re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic after it hit the iceberg. Once the advertisers get wise to the scam that nobody is seeing their ads except bots, the problem will kind of fix itself. I think TPTB want to use "protecting kids from social media" as the public face of why social media will crash and burn soon to avoid discussion of how LLMs actually killed it, because authoritarians love LLMs and they're in charge (although seemingly everyone else hates LLMs, so I'm sure this will end well).
2) Most of the anti commentary reads a lot like addict speak IRL. Talk to a drunk about how it would be a great idea not to drink or a carb addict about how they should not eat donuts and you'll get absolutely rage blasted in return for threatening their addiction, which in the case of an addict, is their identity. "Well it would be the end of the world if people (me) were not drunk and other people (projection of me) will do anything to feed their addiction so obviously no effort should be made to limit addictions and it won't work anyway because other people (me) will even drink mouthwash or homebrew their own moonshine to get drunk" etc. Note I'm not completely against the anti's and they make some very good points that should be considered, but raging like an addict after their drug of choice is threatened is a VERY bad look and is not helping their case at all, if anything it strengthens the case against the anti's. What the pro's don't understand is you can't fix an addiction externally, addicts gotta addict and punishing them and making them miserable might help the pro's feel superior or at least thankful they're not addicted, but it never helped no one. Social media is "an ill of society" and should be treated as such including sensible regulation, protection of threatened groups, treatment for the addicts, and some compassion and acceptance of the addicts either returning to the real world or dying in the addicted world.
- Switch to a non-compliant distro. (could put me in a dead end down the line depending on what happens)
- Find a browser that can block the API access and just use two browsers.
- Have an "online accounts" computer and an "old fashioned" computer?
- Switch to books and DVDs?
>Limiting a child’s ability to explore what they can do with a computer limits their future.
Parents don't want to limit their children from writing software. Saying that limiting minors from accessing porn will limit their future is another argument I doing think many will agree with.
That’s correct, it’s been correct for decades, and parents just won’t do it, not the majority at least. Either they want the state to raise their kids for them, or the task is so complicated and costly that they’re not willing to do it.
But the harms continue to happen, and we’re now left at the mercy of tech-illiterate lawmakers.
Yes, but is it even possible to make majority of schools use a common curriculum in the US?
I do not think the proposal is smart or that will it work, but I am more worried that some people seem to think they hold the absolute truth (on any side of the a debate).
The introduction of age verification is something that was to be expected with the growth in the use of the web, rather than individual programs. But there are a bunch of ways to get around it, which you do, but no one will punish you. This way, you will have parental control and transfer it to the website, while facilitating control over minors' access to unwanted content. And this way, websites do not need to implement their own terrible age verification methods. And when people complain that this is a problem for parents, this is exactly what will help parents: once they set the age in parental controls, programs and websites will have to monitor access (following the law, not goodwill).
This way, access can be controlled at the first level, i.e., at the OS level. There is a law, and there will be others to help improve it. In the same way, you can avoid the use of identifiers and, in general, face verification and a bunch of nonsense.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with parents who did not specify the user's age on the device. But there may be “products” that ignore information from the OS.
Current parental controls do not solve the problem well, because you have to pay for a bunch of questionable products, sacrificing privacy. And it still does not protect against outdated black/white lists. Therefore, the requirement at the OS level to have such control and place responsibility on “products” is an excellent solution in my opinion.
And quite an elegant one at that. Without involving any government identifiers or anything else.
Combined with the widespread implementation of TPM, this will become even more feasible.
> And quite an elegant one at that. Without involving any government identifiers or anything else.
and this:
> There is a law, and there will be others to help improve it.
> Combined with the widespread implementation of TPM, this will become even more feasible.
Without coming to the obvious conclusion that the next step will be even further down the road of tying your every action back to a real, verified, trackable identity.
Let's try to figure out what a good policy solution looks like:
- entities with harmful or adult content must require proof of the user being over 18
- entities cannot ask for, store, or process more detailed information without explicit business needs (this should be phrased in a way that disallows Instagram from asking for your birth year, for example)
- entities cannot share this data with other sites, to avoid privacy leaks, unless there is an explicit business need (this is tricky to get right; someone might try to set up a centralized non-anonymous age-verification service, erasing many benefits)
- entities must in general not store or process information about the user that is not strictly relevant to their function
- there ought to be different treatment for anonymous users (which ideally these protocols will allow, just submit proof of work plus a ZKP that you are a human and authorized to access the resource) compared to pseudonymous and non-anonymous users, who are more at risk of being censored or tracked.
There's some loopholes here, but if the government can enact good policy on this I personally think it's feasible. Please share your thoughts, if you have a minute to do so.
There's also an interesting political split to note among the opposition here. I see a lot of people vehemently against this, and as far as I can see this is largely for concerns regarding one of 1) privacy abuses, 2) censorship, or 3) restriction of general computing. Still, there is a problem with harmful content and platforms on the web. (Not just for minors, I don't think we should pretend it doesn't harm adults too.) The privacy crowd seems to be distinctly different from the computing-freedom crowd; the most obvious example is in attitudes towards iOS. As I personally generally align more towards what I perceive as the privacy-focused side, I'm very interested in what people more focused on software freedom think about zero-knowledge proofs as a politically workable solution here.
The time is coming where we will unseat legislative traitors who use EU/Old World manipulations in the USA.
An unjust law is no law at all. That is the exception the rule of law requires to remain moral.
P.S. Is your handle a reference to Cats on Mars by Seatbelts? Yoko Kanno <3
One developer began a discussion:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2026-March/04...
Their attempts of a "solution" are quite interesting. One other user suggested that GUI tools ask for the age of the user.
Well ... I have a very strong opinion here. I have been using Linux since over 20 years and I will not ever give any information about my personal data to the computer devices I own and control. So any GUI asking for this specifically would betray me - and I will remove it. (Granted, it is easier to patch out the offending betrayal code and recompile the thing; I do this with KDE where Nate added the pester-donation daemon. Don't complain about this on reddit #kde, he will ban you. KDE needs more money! That's the new KDE. I prefer oldschool KDE but I digress so back to the topic of age "verification").
The whole discussion about age "verification" appears to be to force everyone into giving data to the government. I don't buy for a moment that this is about "protecting children". And, even IF it were, I could not care any less about the government's strategy. Even more so as I am not in the country that decided this in the first place, so why would I be forced to comply with it when it ends up with GUI tools wanting to sniff my information and then give it to others? For similar reasons, one reason I use ublock origin is to give as few information to outside entities when I browse the web (I am not 100% consistent here, because I mostly use ublock origin to re-define the user interface, which includes blocking annoying popups and what not; that is the primary use case, but to lessen the information my browser gives to anyone else, is also a good thing. I fail to see why I would want to surrender my private data, unless there is really no alternative, e. g. online financial transactions.)
I also don't think we should call this age "verification" law. This is very clearly written by a lobbiyst or several lobbyists who want to sniff more data off of people. The very underlying idea here is wrong - I would not accept Linux to become a spy-tool for the government. I am not interested in how a government tries to reason about this betrayal - none of those attempts of "explanation" apply in my case. It is simply not the job of the government to sniff after all people at all times. This would normally require a warrant/reasonable suspicion of a crime. Why would people surrender their rights here? Why is a government sniffing after people suddenly? These are important questions. That law suddenly emerging but not in the last +25 years is super-suspicious.
This would be the least of evils (such as ID verification). But a bigger problem is that the implementation is very flawed. It doesn't appear to be very effective. People, including children, can lie. Multiple people can share the same account. Also there are many devices that cannot be updated (such as embedded). My concern is that these idiots might introduce even more extreme laws when they see that it isn't efficient enough.
I hope it will cause so many problems (implementation, backslash, etc) that it will be eventually cancelled.
—-system76 customer
—-system76 customer
The goal for the AI side is that they get to be censors and gatekeepers of all user-generated content on the internet, their models will rank/grade/censor content for age-appropriateness and they will have the pleasure of being paid to train on all new content uploaded to the internet in real-time, in perpetuity.
I'm guessing you meant can't
No, the vm is for grownups over 18.
„But Jonas parents allow him to do that“ in reality Jonas parents should not have a say in this.
Alcohol? Yeah one or two too many drinks and you're in the hospital getting your stomach vacuumed. Driving? Blink and you run over a kid. Internet? You can spend evening and nights over there and not be harmed in any way.
We have full generations of kids that can now be studied about the effects of the internet, starting with millenials. I won't pretend the Internet is a better place now than it was when I was a teen, but it appears to me the "dangerous" things are more focused and concentrated (at least for kids): social networks. It's still a minefield, but with leagues between two mines.
Porn has always been the topic touted for children safety, because it's scary and resonates with conservatives and religious people. Access to is is roughly the same today than it was then, and arguably less dangerous today because the dirty stuff is hidden deeper, thus less likely to stumble upon.
But other than porn, the thing that changed the most is social networks. Addiction, bullying, etc. Facebook 15 years ago was a not serious place. The equivalent today is the best place to get roasted by fellow kids and bullied 24/7 while not being able to get off the hook. The damage is psychological, which is insidious, but not systematic. Not every kid will get bullied, not every kid will be addicted to the algorithm(tm), etc.
In the end, education plays a bigger role than simple age verification. Stimulate your kids, give them things to do other than doomscrolling, and get them on the dark corners of the internet to give them curiosity about the world and un-sanitized stuff (hacking in all forms, etc).
To be more direct - if you're in any editorial position where something that smells like this might require your approval, please give it the scrutiny it deserves. That is, the same scrutiny that a malicious actor submitting a PR that introduces a PII-leaking security hole would receive. As an industry we need to civil disobedience the fuck out of this.
It really is just a parenting issue at its core.
And modern hardware is so complex that it is impossible for individuals to build one by their own. We are no longer in the 8-bit/16-bit era. And considering the power of AI -- individuals pretty much mean nothing to the elites.
I have never thought the Dystopian future to be so close -- I always thought it would be X years away. But legislation, the lawyers, are definitely very efficient on this kind of things.
These laws have spread like wildfire around the world with many countries and regions rolling out similar legislation within months of each other, despite the stereotypical lethargy of any and every legislature. That's not the work of some popular uprising of parents clamouring for age verification.
I fear debating the merits of the argument is missing the point; they don't care. They don't care about children, they don't care about the argument, they just want the control.
This is so true.
I stopped reading at this point, as this is utter non-sense. I mean, it's a beautiful idea, but any person with more than two neurones knows that real-life doesn't work like that. We have law enforcement and prisons because, despite our best efforts in education, some people do go off to become criminals due to a number of factors.
I'm not saying that the present number of laws is adequate, but the solution is a different set of laws, not the complete lack of them. The idea of "simply educate children and we'll all be fine" is utterly moronic.
I mean Wikipedia hung some huge banners to raise awareness, the German wiki even had a "blackout" because of "Directive 2019/790", there was something similar on Reddit etc. I don't expect them to leave the US market or anything like that, but also I don’t even know what to say, as if everyone has already resigned.
Unless I'm missing something, I have zero concern for companies who sell out by complying.
The code was "free as in freedom" when you decided to build your company on it; and while you're not legally obligated to defend that freedom, and I, and hopefully other consumers, find that you are morally obligated to.
I live in the UK, I work in London. I can go on X and look at what Elon Musk is posting about the UK and as a reasonable person I can quite reasonably say he's gone mental. The algorithm has broken that mans brain. And it's not just him, a whole slew of establishment women lost their absolute minds about the trans issue (and Graham Linehan). Mumsnet became a centre for radicalization. You know and some one who grew up on the internet at quite a sweet spot I'm very comfortable looking at that stuff and going "Oh yeah, you guys are being groomed by these algorithms and you're defenceless to it".
There's a whole load of "How do we protect the children from this", but I don't think there's actually been much a reckoning with how grown adults are getting sucked into this vortex. The algorithms on the internet clearly have some trap doors that just absolutely funnel people into crazy places.
All of which is to say: We have a serious problem that's effecting everyone not just kids, and I think we've got almost no answers for how to tackle it.
The result is this- poorly thought through sweeping laws that aren't solving the problem, and have massive negative side effects. I think Jonathon Haidt has a lot to answer for in funnelling this complex issue affecting everyone into this reactionary "won't someone think of the children!" campaign for banning technology for kids.
Yes. And having a fixed cut off from 'you can't see omg boobs! on the internet' to 'you can see snuff porn on the internet' won't help.
1. People somehow, in big enough parts of the world to overcome the “Brussels Effect”, manage to avoid age verification laws getting passed.
2. Laws get passed, but because it was likely to be the case, the tech industry prepared and has an age verification system ready to go that’s “as good as possible” with regards to privacy.
3. Laws get passed, and because the tech industry spent more time fighting it than preparing for it, they’re now forced to implement something suboptimal.
4. Laws get passed, and the tech industry refuses to comply, then more laws get implemented stipulating exactly how the age verification system has to work, and it’s much worse than anything they could’ve come up with had they not been stubborn.
Right now, I think option 1 is so unlikely as to be safe to ignore as an option. And from what dialogue I’m reading, 2 is unlikely as well because some tech bros still think that code can win over laws. I just hope that the stick gets extracted from some of the relevant asses before option 3 turns into option 4.
I mean... How else would you educate children about computers and evading stupid restrictions?
I wonder if "they're" trying to install a Nomenklatura-style [0] government.
[0]: Alison "alimcforever" McIntyre, The Soviet "communist" elite was already a owning class. <https://youtu.be/QYRMgjKTy1s>
Make it optional and assume an adult otherwise, it's a good idea if it's optional and doesn't have dumb fines, you could have fines for not enforcing it / not using the api [porn sites] that already exists [and it doesn't work since 1 button is not age verification].
I see this as a good way for parents and institutions to set up their phones, school laptops etc and would pretty much solve the large majority of these issues while having a fraction of the invasiveness.