California Assembly Bill 1043(excerpt)> . 1798.501. (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following:> . (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.> . (2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user:> . . (A) Under 13 years of age.> . . (B) At least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age.> . . (C) At least 16 years of age and under 18 years of age.> . . (D) At least 18 years of age.> . (3) Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title.- - - - - - - - - Source: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704Archive: https://archive.is/8KIHX
>>106920427>soon all prebuilt computers in California ship with FreeDOS, which has no user accounts and thus no account-setup process, or any legal obligations under this title
Can we just give California to China already?
>>106920427this means that websites don't have to verify a users age to 'protect he children'basically it's not a bad idea compared to what other states are doing (send your photo id to a 3rd party verifier for every fucking website)
>>106920923I hope you're right but with these things I always expect the worst, I don't think these people have the foresight to realize what they are doing. They will fuck it up somehow.
>>106920923yeah, it means the OS will need to instead, much better, if you think this won't end in asking for your ID during setup I'd think that's naive
>>106920427California gets shittier by the year
>>106920800>>106921058I hope you know it isn't just going to be in California. Texas is already gearing up to do something similar with SB2420.
>>106921047it won't have to verify age, that will just be power tripping companies the law is fine. it is basically mandating that OS have an API indicating if it's a kiddie account
>>106920427>>106921086I keep telling you faggots. This isn't the same as the porno bills, Kavanaugh says these laws with likely be found unconstitutional.https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-mississippi-facebook-youtube-2113738
>>106921315will be seeing you come here to whine when it gets maliciously implemented like the EU cookie bs
>>106921086Texas can go too. What's so great about dumb old Texas?
>>106920427The next Big One cannot come soon enough.
>>106921357I don't think so. The "malicious implementation" is already possible, yet they haven't done it. Why would this law which encourages a less idiotic, totally anonymous way of neutralizing any "protect the children" argument cause that?All it says it that the OS should have an age or date of birth for the user and mask that in an "approximate" age APIYou - as an admin - can set whatever age you want. That's all it requiresThis law is *never* the problem. The problem will be if Microsoft/Apple/Google do something stupid and require an online account (oh wait, Microsoft is already trying that regardless) or require identity verification. This law is clearly written in a way to prevent the need to gather personal information and the mandated API even is unspecific about the age of the user deliberately. All open operating systems can *easily* comply with this law and not reveal anything about their users except that it's OK to show them pornography if they ask for it.
>>106920427That system can be broken easily by a not very smart teenager, it's not a feasible law.
>>106923836>This law is *never* the problem.LMAO. The law is always the problem, they can't legislate over the imposible, setting rules that can't be verified is absurd. Lawmakers are blatantly ignorant about technology.
>>106920427BOOBA
>>106923923There is nothing wrong with this law. You have to imagine scenarios of companies using it as an excuse - but it's simply that - an excuse. They would be doing it anyway (as Microsoft already is). Open source software can comply with this easily and in a privacy-friendly way. Moreover this law solves completely neutralizes that only arguments (so far successful in American states) for identity verification. What now do they need it for? Other states have gone through id laws for access to adult sites, but every operating system now has an API to determine if the user is an adult rendering it pointless and unnecessary.
>>106920427Not my problem
>>106921322>Y-Yeah they will totally stop at porn!Damn I didn't think vantablack gorilla niggers as dumb as you actually did exist in the wild.
>>106923923>laughs in libertarian>crashes the economy so bad he now has to beg for gibs to surviveThis commie faggot will accordingly be thrown out of a helicopter.
>>106924191Dude, our economy was shit before him; in 2023 we had an anual inflation rate of +200% the anual inflation rate now is near %30.
>>106924152Can't help if you're legally illiterate, Harambe. Guess you'll apologize when the decision comes down and proves your faggot ass wrong?
>>106924978based kill the doubters
>>106920427Yaia is six.
>>106925019big booby
>>106924124>Moreover this law solves completely neutralizes that only arguments (so far successful in American states) for identity verification.it really doesn't, those pushing for ID will rightfully say this is muh dangerous for kids as kids can set whatever age they want and we're back to the same square as the "r u 18" pop-ups
>>106920427What if there are no accounts?
>>106923836>totally anonymousIT ISN'T
>>106926893(cont) basically my mildly schizo theory is that they'll be happy to let it get in like this, and then once it's in most OSes they can claim "well it's not enough, we need it ID verified now thanks!"
