This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I've seen a lot of people saying how this will be unenforceable and so isn't something we need to worry about.
Except this could be enforced. Google came out with a proposal a few years ago for a method of validating the a request came from a "trusted" (aka, signed and with secure boot enabled OS), ostensibly to combat bot traffic. They dropped it after push back, but it still provides a blueprint for how this could be enforced.
https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity
If web platforms are mandated by law to enforce something like this then the web could be effectively restricted to only approved operating systems. There could still be a dark web, but with the weight of the law behind it, once anything gained momentum access to it could be shut down at the service provider layer.
This shouldn't be dismissed as a threat because it's "unenforceable", because it is.
I see how this is bad from a privacy standpoint, but how does it affect device ownership?
If you don't control it, you don't really own it. Modern cars can be remotely disabled on the whim of the car maker. Is it really YOUR car if someone else can cripple it or completely disable it without your permission?
It's already the case with your phone if you use OEM OS: manufacturers can do pretty much whatever they want remotely.
Now it's the turn of the computers: either it has a "compliant OS" (remotely controllable by 3rd party), or you will be cut off a growing part of basic use.
Remember when windows implemented a feature that took a screenshot of your PC every 5 seconds or whatever? Now they know exactly whose screenshots those are and basically surveille your PC use as if watching from behind your back? Yeah...we know what they want. They want to effectively disarm our ability to use computers to challenge them. God knows what they're planning to implement after this goes through. It's not just about the laws they're passing, it's about what those laws enable them to do. Sure windows rolled back that feature, but it's still there. They didn't remove the code, they just changed what triggers it and if the PC user knows or not.
We will keep defeating these nasty bills, we have to keep pushing and not just giving into what the government wants. As what the government wants is nasty as fuck! There will be means to circumvent such changes, Ageless Linux is working on categorizing the methods of evasion, keeping track of what Linux distros are deciding and doing in regards to Age Verification.
Wouldn't this just be unenforceable for any Linux distros not directly owned/maintained by a US-based corporation? I don't really see how they could force a distro to comply, unless they start going after individual maintainers who live in the US.
If you read this ~~law~~ bill in the strictest way, it makes almost no sense. It says that anyone who makes or controls an operating system has to check the age of every person who uses it. But it does not limit this to big companies. That could mean volunteers who help build Debian or even someone at home making their own version of Linux. The ~~law~~ bill would expect them to build a system that asks for (and verifies) a birthday before you can use the computer.
It gets even stranger with websites like GitHub. If someone downloads shared code and uses it, the person who posted it might be seen as responsible. But they have no way to know who downloaded it or what they did with it. The ~~law~~ bill would still expect their system to check ages and share that information with app makers.
Gets even more absurd when you start to dig at the definition of an 'operating system'.
Besides computers and phones, lots of small electronic devices have a rudimentary OS built into them, including (among many other things) a lot of appliances these days. Forget needing to verify your age in order to use your computer, say hello to needing to verify your age in order to use a refrigerator ... or a gas pump.
