This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Why can’t we just have better parental controls? I’m a parent and I do want to protect my kids but I will not upload a photo or anything else.
Account is created? Who said were making accounts for our operating systems
AFAIK, only adults can sign up for internet access, so a minor watching porn on the internet is the same as said minor watching their parents’ adult DVDs or drinking alcohol their parents purchased. It’s already illegal for adults to give minors access to these things, so what’s next? Alcohol bottles that only open and DVDs / Bluerays that only play if you can provide an ID and prove your age every time?
Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established.
It's so fucking obvious the people who wrote this have no idea other operating systems than iOS, Windows and Android exist.
For fuck's sake.
What are parental controls?
Goodbye tech ownership in Colorado if this passes. We're moving one step closer to the government issuing out thin clients that only they control.
Age verification is identity verification.
GOTEM! THIS IS ALL ABOUT POWER & CONTROL, AND THESE PEOPLE WANT TO COVER THEIR ASSES TOO!
"OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER" MEANS A PERSON THAT DEVELOPS, LICENSES, OR CONTROLS THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ON A DEVICE.
great, for my devices then, that would be me
This is getting ridiculous.
Linux is the only reasonable choice anymore.
Linux won't be legal in Colorado if they pass this. You'll need an account with some age-policing, ID-reporting corporation to be able to use a computing device.
How do they imagine they could enforce this though? Presumably quite selectively, based on the user's political leanings.
Presumably quite selectively, based on the user’s political leanings.
Not defend Democrats too much here, but they clearly have far less of a habit of doling out enforcement based on political leanings than the Republicans, even if they do enforce things quite selectively when it comes to actual leftists while letting Nazis run around with seeming impunity.
Colorado has been a solidly Blue state since the end of the W. Bush years, and even then, it was pretty split down the middle with just over half of the votes going to Bush. It's honestly been mostly-Blue-dominated since 1992. (Lauren Boebert notwithstanding)
Further, the two main sponsors of the bill are both Democrats. This genuinely seems to me to be another example of "heart in the right place but don't know what the fuck they're actually doing" which seems common for the tech illiterate and often for Democrats in general.
Once again, not saying Democrats aren't guilty of selective enforcement, just pointing out that they're far less likely to do so (or at least less likely to do so against conservatives, for genuine leftists it seems up for debate).
Now, that also means nothing in context to how other politicians can use this kind of legislation negatively, even if the writers and sponsors truly have the best of intentions. Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well, and way back then folks like me were saying "this seems pretty dangerous, especially if we ever have a despot take control of the country and the levers for these tools" which clearly has come to pass.
Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well,
How do you know what their intentions were?
Well, not all of them, obviously. Yet, for example, I tend to think Joe Biden actually did have good intentions considering the bulk of the PATRIOT Act was based on his prior legislation in the 90s, his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act. It's worth noting this was in response to a wave of US homegrown right-wing white nationalist radicalism and terrorism in the 1990's such as Waco and Ruby Ridge. The Oklahoma City Bombing would happen a month after this bill first appeared. Considering the shitstorm we're in regarding virulent white nationalist terrorism, I kind of think back when he first wrote it that it wasn't such a bad idea.
People who were more clearly war hawks like Hillary Clinton? Probably a lot less likely to have had great intentions.
Yet others, like Ron Wyden, who has been a consistent critic of the out of control national security state and voted against military intervention in Iraq in 2002 also voted for the PATRIOT Act. He also spent a great deal of time trying to amend the PATRIOT Act as well.
And as much as Democrats drink from the same well of corporate funding as Republicans, I wouldn't say the majority of the party is outright evil or don't care what happens to their constituents. Schumer obviously doesn't give a fuck, but I also don't think he's actually representative of the party as a whole as much as he just has power in a party that puts seniority over merit in intraparty politics.
It's easy to forget how much shock and terror 9/11 really did put into people which colored how quickly they foolishly signed off on the PATRIOT Act.
Are they going to check people's PCs at the state borders as they move in then?
Do you have any ~~fruit~~ computers to declare?
Not the OS.
The OS "provider"
Linus Torvalds ain't gonna check my ID. And i don't want him to, either.
Everyone was born at 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970
Just think: Without legislation like this, kids will be able to see people having sex! Thus, ending their lives. Not so different from staring into the eyes of Medusa!
The amount of children exposed to sex that have died—or suffered worse consequences like early onset conservatism—may have been zero so far but the dangers are clear! We must skip right over parental involvement in child rearing and go straight to the source of the problem: Computers.
Computers have been giving everyone access to too much information for too long! We must restrict it! The first step is to get an implementation that actually works to censor information—to save the children (wink wink)—then later, we will have the tools necessary to censor whatever we want!
When glorious dictator decides that information about trans-genic mice must be erased from the Internet, we shall have the power to do so!
I would argue that early and excessive exposure to very misogynistic porn can be damaging to a child in that it can reinforce that misogyny and bad sexual patterns/ideas.
I would also argue that it is the job of the parent or guardian of said child to make sure the information they get online (or anywhere for that matter) is age-appropriate, and not the job of the state.
These are clearly laws that are either not well thought through or (probably more likely) intentionally limiting of every citizen’s privacy. I don’t think that even if the porn or bullying or whatever problem was as bad as they say it is that this would even be justified.
We must protect little Billy from seeing tits, so he can keep laser focus on preparing for the next school shooting.
Hear, hear. When I was young my friends and I wanted to see the naked boobies but because the internet had not been invented we just couldn't. It was impossible! Its not the kind of thing you find lying around!
This goes in a better direction than web sites doing it themselves, I think. The government put out an open source tool that runs locally and the browser just gets a yay/nay return code from it.
The only thing this bill seems to affect are apps. It has no provision for websites, meaning kids would still have unlimited access to adult content. If a kid wants to get around browser checks, all they have to do is either install an older browser that doesn't use the OS verification, or find a plug-in that fakes it (and of course those will immediately come out).
Even worse, if the OS requires ALL software to acknowledge the age verification checks, what do you think that means? Everyone in Colorado is required to immediately spend thousands to buy all new versions of every program they use? And what happens to the software that is no longer updated? If you're lucky, you can buy something completely different and spend months rebuilding all your old information into the new system? Sounds wonderful.
I think it's pretty clear that this was written by people who are used to getting everything from the iOS store/macOS store/Microsoft store/Google Play store and have no fucking clue what using a computer that isn't "app-based" is like.
On paper, I like this solution better than every app/site developer having to hack together (or outsource) their own age verification system. But I'm sure it opens up a ton of potential problems. And if it's open source, someone could just fork it and make a version that always says "yes" so unfortunately it'll never be FOSS.
Some kind of cryptographic signing of the executable could probably help with that.
Ultimately I don't believe there can ever be a foolproof solution and the emphasis should be on client-side parental controls.
How do they secure age data? Age is most likely two characters, with a max of three characters. If there are penalties for sharing the age data when they aren't supposed to, how do they secure this? Even with cryptography a two character number with only 70-ish reasonable and expected variations is going to be difficult to secure.
How do they ensure no one who is a different age ever uses the device? "Use mom's iPad" is univseral. Does mom get in trouble for letting her child use her device, does the parent end up with the fine?
However, if a developer has clear and convincing information that a user's age is different than the age indicated by an age signal, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user's age range.
Sounds good. Might even encourage more people to move to a privacy respecting OSs.
Sorry for the stupid question, but what would an “operating system provider” mean here? Does that mean “the organization that builds and distributes the operating system”? If so, Linux is sort of screwed in CO; even The Linux Foundation can’t act for Linux the same way Apple or Microsoft can for macOS or Windows respectively. Maybe Red Hat could, but only for their flagship distro RHEL, and the E stands for Enterprise, lest we forget.
If “operating system provider” were interpreted to mean “system administrator”, however (which is a stretch, but still), that might be a decent solution, since it has the effect of age-limiting content in an enforceable way, but keeps identity information from being centralized under a government or (single) private agency. The sysadmin for children would be parents, who are the only ones who would be providing the hardware, and that could work, especially if there was only the child’s account on the device (like a cell phone).
I dunno if the above is horribly ignorant; if so, I’m open to being more educated on the topic.
Ah, I found the official answer to my question in the definitions (definition 9):
"OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER" MEANS A PERSON THAT DEVELOPS, LICENSES, OR CONTROLS THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ON A DEVICE.
This still leaves room for ambiguity, though, especially when it comes to Linux: is the OSP the person who installs the OS (e.g. a sysadmin)? They control the operating system on that device. Or are they the individual/organization that deems what software counts as a given operating system (e.g. Microsoft or Linus)? They develop and license the operating system that happens to be on a given device. Maybe it’s both, but the context suggests the latter more strongly to me.
It also says the age will be acquired 'upon login', so I'm not sure how that would work with linux. More anti-tech old farts making the rules
More anti-tech old farts making the rules
Wish we could blame it on them being old, but the primary sponsors aren't that old. Matt Ball looks late thirties, early forties at most and Amy Paschal looks late forties, early fifties at most. I couldn't find background on their specific ages, but Matt Ball's bio refers to still raising his children, which also implies the younger side.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
Year of the Linux desktop inbound.
Another aspect beyond making Linux legally dubious is this: How do they actually secure the age-data?
Age is generally two characters with a limited character set [0-9] even with an extremely well hashed and salted you're looking at only less than 70 combinations being very likely.
There are penalties for sharing with a third party, but what if it's trivial for a third party to exfiltrate this data?
