this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
677 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

82518 readers
5912 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Hello Fellow Lemmings,

I called a few of my state reps and senators about this. I wasn't able to get through to Matt Ball, but I spoke with a member of Paschall's staff who was very polite and helpful despite our disagreements. i also spoke to my own rep's staff but they were not terribly tech savvy. As I suspected, to some degree, this is being framed as an attempt to introduce a less harmful scheme and set the standard before the feds or peer pressure from other states does. Apparently Paschall is meeting with System 76 soon and I asked her aid to let me know what comes of that. I still think it's bullshit and it's crazy to try this with a backdrop of eroding right, liberties, overreach of law enforcement, and mass surveillance of the American people. The Democrats can't do shit for their liberal constituents, but they're kneeling at the feet of the Republicans begging to cooperate anytime they want to do anything authoritarian "for the public good."

Interesting thing about Colorado: we have a ballot initiative process to amend the state constitution where if a citizen collects enough signatures to get an issue on the ballot, we get to vote on it. I don't know who is fighting against this legislation, I've done research and all I can find is the EFF, a few articles, and now System76. I would like to plug in to lobby against this sort of thing. How dope would it be if they passed it only to have us unpass it and collect enough signatures to get a constitutional amendment banning all identity and age verification and declaring that the power lies with the parents onto the ballot.

With that said, a tolerable outcome would be if retailers selling PCs into Colorado were required to include a bundled copy of parental control software unless the customer declines it. This gives parents the opportunity and a slight push to get involved. Do I need a copy of NortonAVGDefenderChildWatchProMAX to be bundled with every new NAS I buy? No. Is it better than the shit they're proposing now, yes.

If you read to the end, please call Ball, Paschal, and the other cosponsors and let them know that the Democratic party is taking a huge risk by shitting on their constituents by pulling out such a controversial issue at such a inopportune time. Tell them to vote NO!

Here's a link to the text and the sponsors: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 50 points 20 hours ago

Thank you System76.

[–] StuffYouFear@lemmy.world 22 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Funfact, debit and credit card chips all have tiny OS's on them. Guess its back to swipping mag strips

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago

Motorized scooters and eBikes all have OSes too — as do most modern traffic lights, speed and red light cameras, baby monitors, alarm systems, heart rate monitors, “smart” anything, televisions, household appliances, chair lifts, city water management systems, and pretty much all other actively managed infrastructure.

Your average car has at least three separate operating systems in it — usually a LOT more.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Also likely also counts for the mag strip readers. Looks like carbon paper rubbing is back on the menu!

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago (4 children)

There are SOOOOOO many ways to implement age verification checks. And this is one of the worst. What is wrong with people

[–] Panthenetrunner@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

People responding to this are right about their actual intentions, but yeah. I think if you wanted to go about doing this the right way it would be an "I'm an adult" or a "this device is primarily used by a child" checkmark that could be locked down behind an administrative password.

That's it. That’s all you really need if your intention was actually just makeing sure kids couldn't wander into a part of the internet not made for them. Everything else, verification, that's just surveillance bullshit being bolted on top.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 51 points 1 day ago (10 children)

It's because the goal is surveillance

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] offspec@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

An "I am an adult" checkbox in your OS that gets propagated out is probably the most privacy centric way to lock down kid accounts right?

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

They want to require IDs which requires validation, which requires a central authority. Any websites you hit that require the check will request it from the OS which will need to verify with central authority. So they'll know what websites your hitting.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Yup, the REAL goal here is to get an ID associated with an IP address to remove your anonymity from the web.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Governments already have an ID associated with an IP. There is no ISP that im aware of that lets you register anonymously.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Dynamic IPs still have an ID associated. VPNs most can be subpoena for the true IP. Yes you can hide your IP but only a tiny fraction are doing that work and this law isnt going to affect them.

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

But the IDs are reused, they can really only track you while you're using the internet.

[–] how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Yup, the REAL goal here is to get an ID associated with an IP address to remove your anonymity from the web.

Maybe I'm I don't have enough of a technical understanding (and I'm wrong about this) but I believe there is some sort of fingerprint at the OS level (not IP or Mac) that they can obtain when you're on the net that in turn they want to map to your identity, thus even if you're using tor/vpns to mask your IP, you're still identifiable.

[–] offspec@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

This is different than the legislation being pushed in CA then, sorry it's hard to keep up with the global enshittification of everything

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›