it's the only form of "age verification" which can be done in a somewhat privacy respecting way (as in at most leak the age)
the idea is to "bounce back" the "is old enough" decision to parent controls and let the parent choose (the Californian law doesn't quite do that perfectly, but goes into that direction)
and if you sell what is more or less a general purpose compute/internet access device with OS (which I do include phones into) I think it's very reasonable to either sell it to adults only (with a disclaimer it's "not for children") or include proper parent controls
> Most households aren't going to have a separate device for every family member
in current times in the west it is very very common for many devices to be for one person only. Especially phones, or at least have different (OS) accounts.
but again this comes back to "parent controls", weather that is for a child (OS) account or a way to switch from a child profile to a adult profile doesn't matter
but in the end, the point of such laws should be to give parents tools to parent. As well as handling the case of parent acting in neglect by inaction. But if a parent intentional decides to give their children a device with their profile because they think it's fine than that should be their choice and responsibility.
> Likewise, people generally won't create a separate account for every potential user.
where it was possible I have not seen it not used, weather it's on a switch, gaming console or PC. It is the most convenient way of automatically separates logins, browsing history, game safes etc.
and the law als isn't made for that shared computer in the living room (through it will apply there). It's more about the devices children might use unsupervised, e.g. their phone.
You know what they should do? They should scrap it all, no more "child safety" laws until we kicked money out of politics. Western liberal democracy is in a corruption and legitimacy crisis, this is just it's latest symptom.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...
[2] https://cybernews.com/privacy/persona-leak-exposes-global-su...
could. But Google, Microsoft and Meta do not want to do it this way. They want to sell your personal data, the more, the better.
They want us to all to have user accounts and login like well behaved workers. So cute. Little Donald can login for hisself, and doesn’t need mommy to do it for him.
If taken at face value, sure.
The goal of those age verification laws are not age verification.
Laptops aren't rare either.
If someone wants to introduce an age-verification-ca-module, fine, but not make it core. Yes I understand systemd is not the kernel, but its ubiquitous enough.
That just says to every country around the world; Windows, Mac, and even Linux is on board too, let's make it law also!
I dunno, I always expected Linux to be the last bastion of freedom and not to capitulate so easily.
There are still distros without it, I may have to go to one, since I already jumped Win10 to Cachy for the BS MS is pulling. I was going to go systemd-free but Cachy "just worked" compared to the others in terms of setup. So I stuck with it.
I wish Lennart would just stop already.
1) It's legally required to sell computers with that OS in certain jurisdictions
2) I presume there is at least one person actually selling said
3) The feature is so trivially easy to bypass that it presents no reasonable privacy threat at this time (IIRC, it's just a numeric field with no validation?)
I have no idea.
But they did actually bend over.
it's maintained by companies
they have to comply with law
that they are mostly US companies doesn't exactly help either
> non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.[7]: 273–311
Systemd shouldn't be foisting this nonsense on Linux users however. I suppose the anti-systemd subset of the Linux community was proven right after all, this is the kind of issue that can end up facing when a huge piece of opinionated software like systemd more or less becomes an indispensable part of Linux.
An adult had to pay for the ISP connection; that's the extent of age verification needed. We shouldn't be demanding adults expose their identities to for-profit entities and surveillance states, so much as mandating for-profit companies make parental controls easier to use, more effective, and stopping them from harvesting data on kids in the first place.
Not every corner of the universe needs to be baby-proofed; we just need to build a society where parents are enabled and supported to be parents, rather than outsourcing such a critical role to strangers and/or devices so they can get back to work.
In many countries, it is still possible to buy a prepaid SIM without any ID.
What kind of apps do you people use that are so dangerous? Does the computer zap you if you misuse the app or what?
Ever heard of free wifi?
You can go down the rabbit hole as far as you like, but it's to no avail. At some point, an adult has to consciously enable the child to connect to the internet. Full stop.
systemd which was already in hot water over because the problems it creates over service, this was the last drop to get folks dropping systemct altogether.
I think the only option really at this point is to move over to BSD, but we face other issues like GPU drivers etc. The same people that worry about systemd probably also worry about AI, so if they want to be able to use it, it needs to run locally.
The 3rd option is to move away from general computing, and start building esp32 powered tools, where we can own the fulls stack. Dedicated digital tools for specific purposes. Personally, this sound like the best option, taking into account that we have almost lost the battle for open OS on mobile devices. We need to get away from the giant US corporations for the majority of our computing, and only interact with them when absolutely necessary. A grass roots computing moment basically.
Graphene obviously won't want to partner with a company that immediately bends over backwards for this kind of puritanical nonsense.
Like, what's unclear here? Do you seriously say that corporations should just ignore laws which they don't like?
Unfortunately it’s not enough because there’s also a need to work to get the laws repealed AND stop the endless attempts to bring them back.
What's next, browsers sending this to $website every time you need to post a comment on the web.
I haven’t cut over to it completely yet but I think this’ll be the last nail in the coffin for my time as an Apple user. It’s already a loveless marriage , it’s already over, I’m already sleeping with GrapheneOS on the side. it’s asking when I’m going to leave her and it’s always “soon, baby. soon.”
Is it lack of something similar to PKI for identify verification?
So we delegated the responsibility twice, first the gas station attendant must check the age of the buyer and then, the buyer should check the age of any reader.
So now, who's the "gas station attendant" in our situation?
and if sites and apps don't need to be in the loop for this they can't end up leaking all over the 'net
The tech crowds utter derangement over this minor mandate is truly a sight to behold.
Not quite. The least bad (that I'm aware of) is to mandate RTA headers (or an equivalent more comprehensive self categorization system) and to also mandate that major platforms (presumably OS and browsers, based on MAU or some such) implement support for filtering on those headers.
But sending a binned age as per the California law is the next best thing to that.
It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let the app have the permission while in a sandbox so it sees nothing.
Biometrics are not required.
The concept appears to be that a parent or guardian could enter the birth date before turning the device over to a child.
Malicious compliance would be providing this age bracket API:
boolean is_user_over_18() { sleep (18 * 365.25 * 86400); return true; }
This is a real-time interface (as required by the law) that takes 18 years to complete. (Remember: "Real-time" does not mean "fast").
Why would anybody bother to implement that?
I don't think current iterations of the law require that this be sent off-device in any way.
age < 13
age >= 13 && age < 16
age >= 16 && age < 18
age >= 18
A non-maliciously compliant implementation would need to retain a date of birth or equivalent until the user was over 18.
A maliciously compliant API could just wait 18 years after account creation before yielding an answer. (remember folks: "real time" does not mean "fast").
One of the oddities about the way the law is phrased is that it requires the age band information about the user be provided to "the developer" rather than to the application.
Having an age setting is not verification.
I hate the articles that lump everything together.
It also gets sites to stop doing their own invasive verification systems.
In different times, i might have argued differently. I'm not saying it's not worth protecting the world you deem worthy of protection. But no matter what that world is to any of you. The one we all share is changing for sure. Uncontrollably fast. And many things are gonna change. And many things won't matter that much anymore, if we actually end up going where we're headed.
I mean a this is just a super small part of it all, but i assume in this specific case, for graphene, it's a battle for privacy... and they're right. But we're still going into a future where we got 5,10,20,30 more years of "AI", even just keeping the same level of overall sophistication for most, but costs decreasing immensely... I don't know about you, but I don't think the ways we protect our privacy can be unaffected, already because we're going to learn all new aspects about which data is private. Just out of practicality. Extreme example: but if generating hundreds of obscene deepfakes of any person as easily as taking a photo with your iPhone... ah, i can't keep having this discussion, i hope i am just an insane moron who is wrong. But, just to be sure: instead of arguing if we should close the windows on the train that's burning, or leave them open, as some are smart and others need help, let's just get off the fucking train.
And yes of course. One might argue (I actually would), we should not start implementing laws like that or start making personal information a requirement to digital access.
But this might be the first step to a different future, or not. As i said, who cares where the train is headed. It's burning and nobody even really wants to be on it. Let's please get off the train.
Not saying the battle is lost. I have tried working on something because I still have great hope. But someone seriously must act. I tried, getting off the train. Or at least start standing up from my seat. Realizing it's not that easy to get off. It's embarrassing, but i can't even get off the train by myself... i tried anyway... but here i am, sitting again (currently on the floor, lost my seat, damn...)... i have been building something for the past 2 years. Well, trying to build something, an attempt to change course... ruining my life over it. And currently i failed, before i even got to a point where my prototype or any of the theoretical work even remotely represents the vision. But maybe i just learned, i was wrong about all of it. I hope i'll make it back being able to afford working on it and someday a way to make enough money to pay smarter people than me to join. But currently, it's insane for me for me to even dare dreaming about that. I have really dug myself a hole. Next time, it should at least be a hill...
So in the meantime: can people like the dudes & dudiñas from graphene please chose a wiser battle. If just some of all these people got together & worked on getting off the train, instead of working on things that seem meaningful now, but wouldn't even be considered worthy of being mentioned in the future... we'd have a shot.
Damn. I still just can't accept it, even though i've literally lost everything believing that. And i am ashamed so deeply believing in what i saw, and in friendly moments still see, as a future... thinking i could change it, without changing myself... but please god, in the end, let me not have been just bonkers, but convicted.
(As if that, would be, any different).
"GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification or an account."
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116261301913660830
That raises the issues that GrapheneOS needs to solve, which may require more creativity than bold, somtimes combative statements.
If GrapheneOS doesn't comply with laws and regulations then they will sometimes be banned or restricted. If that happens, they may not be "usable by anyone around the world" for long.
That doesn't mean they have to capitulate or sacrifice security. They can find creative solutions, some of which are suggested here. The first step is to carefully read the spec to determine what is necessary, then talk to someone like the EFF, and find a way forward.
Also it would be nice if, where Graphene has partnered with hardware manufacturers, then said hardware sellers could issue a statement like "$Manufacturer promises that in regions where GrapheneOS is illegal we'll leave the bootloader unlocked, if users choose to break local legislation then that is on them" and furthermore a statement like "$Manufacturer fully swears on all honour possible that in any regions which ban unlocked bootloader devices then, oops, we found that if you short pins 3 and 8 of the third chip on the left together at any time during booting you'll permanently unlock the bootloader and absolutely nobody is allowed to know that. Which is why we've posted this on every social media channel. Afterall, all our users need to know that they're not allowed to know that the bootloader can be unlocked by shorting pins 3 and 8 (third chip on the left) with anything less than 20 ohms (nobody must know that a paperclip would do for this)".
Nonetheless: Well done GrapheneOS!!!!!!!
