Comment by 🥬 lamb-duh
Re: "What's going on with california and colorado age…"
@jprjr thank you, this information has been very helpful. i'm not sure if i have anything more i want to talk about on the subject, but i'm going to come back and read your posts again later when i'm better able to process them.
The Colorado bill is basically, "if big portion of a websites content or traffic is 'harmful to children' then they have to verify user ages using a method that is 'independently certified to be highly effective' at determining a user is not a child. And the site must use more than just the IP address to determine whether or not the user is in Colorado "
This is very good to know! i was under the impression the two bills were essentially the same.
Mar 12 · 8 weeks ago
54 Later Comments ↓
@darkghost people I've met from outside the US often find this kind of shocking.
My understanding is within Europe - virtually everybody travels internationally at some point. You don't have to go all that far to cross an international border. So having a passport is a lot more common.
👻 darkghost · Mar 12 at 14:38:
Like in the Northeast, a state line is a 2 hour drive, tops. It's the same in Europe but instead it's an international boarder.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 15:06:
@jprjr : the article you linked is compelling, but dates from a time before places like the UK started forcing age verification on everybody. I concede that the regulations in question here also predate that time, so I don't know.
The social media operators are going to end up doing age verification, however hard they fight or try to move the responsibility. It seems inevitable to me. There wouldn't be such an objection, I think, if they'd been trustworthy with privacy from the start. They've only got themselves to blame, although that won't prevent the collateral damage.
Incidentally, I think almost everybody in the UK has a passport. My kids got theirs before they were two years old.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 15:08:
Incidentally, I don't think anybody in the UK objects to age verification in principle. Nobody complains about being asked for ID to buy alchol, or apply for a firearms licence, or see an X-rated movie. Most people think that website age verification is much the same thing as that -- they don't see the hidden privacy risks.
Yeah. I really believe these laws misidentify the problem.
The problem is that parents are working long hours, have long commutes, and don't know how to ensure their kids are being safe online. So we're shifting the responsibility for all of that off of them and onto device manufacturers and app stores, depending on the bill.
I think the better solutions are ones where we empower the parents to make the right choices for their family. Reduce how many hours they need to work, reduce commutes. Offer easy, opt-in solutions.
I would be fine with a law stating ISPs need to provide free, opt-in Internet filtering. Combine that with some universal basic income so parents can focus on kid-raising.
@lars_the_bear regarding not objecting to showing ID. That's the thing is, you're not required to show ID until you try to take the restricted action.
I can walk into a convenience store, and nobody needs to see my ID until I bring alcohol to the counter. If all I'm buying is a candy car, no ID needed. I don't need to show ID on entry since only a small portion of the store sells alcohol. I can go for very long periods without having to show my ID.
These laws are effectively going to make using a computer into a restricted action, even though only a very, very small part of the Internet has any business caring about my age.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 15:27:
@jprjr : "I would be fine with a law stating ISPs need to provide free, opt-in Internet filtering." That's what I had a home, and it worked fine -- right up until my kids got smartphones.
Cellphone networks offer a measure of parental control, but kids can buy a data SIM for the price of candy, and bypass everything.
Things were easier in the days when a family had at most one computer, in a shared room. If we do have to have age verification -- and I think almost everybody feels we do -- then there should be new legislation to force service providers to do it in a privacy-respecting way.
We do have those laws in the EU -- but providers seem to be able to work around them.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 15:30:
@jprjr : I'm not for a moment suggesting that what's being done in California and Colorado isn't totally stupid. Clearly it is, for all sorts of reasons.
But that's not going to put people off the idea of age control. What's being done in the UK, although stupid, is hugely less stupid than in California.
@lars_the_bear these are good points but for the SIM card thing - I think phones should offer the ability to be locked to a SIM card. That way kids can't just pop them out.
No solution will ever be perfect, kids could still save up and buy a cheap phone.
I just look at these laws and ask, what problem is it actually trying to solve?
If we actually held Facebook accountable and started enforcing COPPA fines, Facebook would figure out how to keep young kids out overnight.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 16:01:
@jprjr : maybe -- when the whole world has the same regulations, or governments find a way to ban VPNs and proxies (which ours is seriously considering).
VPN usage has shot up in the UK, since we got age verification. And in Australia, after the social media ban. We don't know (of course) whether the new users are kids, or adults who don't want their online habits further tracked.
I'm not sure that robust, privacy-sparing age verification is possible even in theory, let alone in practice. That's why we're seeing all these stupid, half-hearted, ineffective implementations right now.
@lars_the_bear the way I see it - here in the US we determined that 13 is when kids no longer need their parents consent. It's been that way for a long time.
If we think 13 is too low now - then we should raise that age. And just enforce the existing laws.
This new law really only benefits social media apps, because all it does is get Facebook et al out of COPPA fines since they can blame it on the operating system/app store.
It doesn't actually benefit parents, or kids, or anybody really. Just the social media companies.
It is the next step towards the total digital enslavement of the human livestock.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 16:52:
The problem I see here is that age verification doesn't amount to enslavement of the human livestock. We've always done age verification, for decades if not for centuries. Nobody ever objected before, so far as I can tell.
It's the way it's being done, and the unworthy motives of all the stakeholders, that's the problem.
I for one do object to age limits as implemented in the US. You are not allowed to drink till 21, but you are encouraged to join the army and kill people in far-away places years before you can drink. Nudity is age-restricted in films, but not violence.
The problem I see is that we started with OS´s being a service to the customer, a way to get the hardware to be useful to the customer. Today the ´consumer´ is no longer the customer, but a mere nuisanse to the corporations, the overhead, the cost of being in business. The big money is in B-to-B and government grants/contracts, and various financial constructs.
But in this particular case, we have Google who makes OSs but mostly collects information and works with governments already. We have Microsoft, likewise. I think the issue is the rogue Linux distro guys who don´t have cozy relationships with States, and clearly need to be handcuffed. ´Protecting our children´ is not going to stop with forcing OS makers to ask the user for age once during installation. Compliance will require all kinds of government up our ass and soon in all our repos.
@stack I'm hoping it doesn't get that far.
In the US, software is considered to be a form of expression, protected by the first amendment. And we've had multiple cases that the government can't coerce speech - you can't be made to say things you disagree with.
What's likely the best route for open source is a multi-pronged approach.
Prong one, try to get the law revoked. Raise awareness, call people, etc.
Prong two, don't comply, don't tell people "you can't use this in California," just do business as usual. Save for a lawyer, if states come after you - hopefully get a court to strike the law down as unconstitutional.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 13 at 08:25:
@stack : "... you are encouraged to join the army and kill people in far-away places years before you can drink."
Sure. We have similar inconsistencies in the UK. But that's still a matter of implementation, I think, rather than of principle. It's bizarre that we can legally get married before we can watch an adult movie, but I don't see many people arguing that their schoolkids should be watching Sally Sucks a Stallion.
So long as every child has the Internet in his or her pocket, people will argue that we should be Doing Something About It.
@stack, thank you for brinfing up the words 'consumer' and 'customer'.
The problem I see is that we started with OS´s being a service to the customer, a way to get the hardware to be useful to the customer.
one of the reason corporations can enforce so much is because they frame us as customers, not citizens.
as citizen you have more rights than as their customer.
(btw, stack, in armenian the word user as in computer/web/mobile phone user, contains two roots: use and own).
@stack, btw drinking age limits in usa are connected to the urban design. most of usa cities aren't walkable and those youngsters would go to public drinking places by car, and would get back by car, so drinking age was introduced to make them die a couple of years later.
heh, back to topic, i see the problem in total misunderstanding of what computer as general turing complete device is, and why it should obey to the owner, not someone else.
it's not a 'consumer' device, not a tool to consume. not a tv set or radio. btw radios in ussr at some point were limited in a way to not be able to receive certain western channels.
it was easy to overcome by modding.
and even ussr didn't have dmca like punishments for modding.
so many were modding and ussr instead invested in big jamming radio stations that were just generating interference to 'protect' people.
i see remainings of the one from my window. we always knew what were those towers.
in late 80ies, when ussr started slowly opening up, and there was so called 'tv bridge' program on which studios in ussr and usa would meet and ask each other questions.
so people were so 'protected' that when someone from usa asked smth about sex, the participant from ussr said that 'there's no sex in ussr'. that phrase became famous. the participant even didn't know definition of the word, she was so protected.
i suggest other law: what if we forbid to use proprietary software till the 30?
because it can harm, make young brains addicted, and get used to constant surveillance and control by random entities in pursue of profit.
young brains aren't mature enough to be able to resist carefully designed dark patterns in software.
only when the brain is fully developed, sapolski says after 30, we may allow choosing non-free software.
that would feel so limiting, that i guess not many would want to.
it's a joke, of course, and main point is, there shouldn't be a law that normalizes that my device is obeying someone else.
if device is able to obey, everyone wants it to obey them. corps, gov wants.
👻 darkghost · Mar 14 at 00:56:
My recollection of drinking age laws is different. The age of majority used to be 21 including for voting however the age of the draft was 18. So these kids were being sent off to die and had no say in the matter. The age of majority was lowered to 18 in response, including for drinking. But high schoolers were getting ahold of alcohol. So state by state they began raising the age of drinking to 21. For a brief period you could go drinking by crossing state lines if you were 20 for example. More recently states began raising the age of tobacco to 21 as well.
In NY you had to be 21 to enter topless bars. But you could go to a bottomless club at 18, because the law prohibited serving alcohol around nude women...
So long as every child has the Internet in his or her pocket, people will argue that we should be Doing Something About It.
@lars_the_bear i understand that certain content became more easily reachable than ever.
and i don't know what is a good solution.
still making computers not obeying owners is not a good solution.
even ussr allowed modding radio receivers, and you know soviet state was more afraid that someone would listen bbc or deutsche welle than that someone would see naked bodies.
it were western clothes what they didn't want us to see. not nudity. (:
also the movements of non soviet people, one would feel how much freedom is in those movements.
and they were so afraid of rock!
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 14 at 08:30:
@norayr : There are many cases where my machines don't obey me. I can't put my car into reverse gear at highway speeds. I can't start my drill press without its safety screen in place. And so on.
What's different, I think, is that these measures were clearly taken to protect the user. The same is true _in principle_ of age verification rules. So why are we complaining?
I think it's because we all know, deep down, that these measures _aren't_ being implemented for our safety, but for less worthy motives.
I'm sure that age verification is going to happen. We should all be working together to make it happen in a sensible way, before Meta and governments force it on us in a stupid way.
each time i am mentioning free software.
before using on not using free software was a choice.
you want video streaming in browser? then browser needs to have a proprietary closed source piece.
do you agree to it or you are fine without it?
i am fine without it and don't agree to be able to watch netflix or mubi or whatever but have closed source code in my machine.
the car is (was) different because it didn't have the cpu. and you could modify it, if necessary. or ask a specialist to modify it.
today it has the cpu, many of them and those cpu's are running proprietary code.
you paid for batteries but only can use half of them without subscription.
yesterday i have heard from someone that youtube wanted from them an id to allow to pay money and watch tv series. despite that the person's account is more than a usa drinking age. (:
ok back to free software: not knowing the recipy of coca cola is not a problem. if someone drinks it it won't go to vote to someone else. it doesn't impact your mind.
though even there the consumer unions achieved the laws that ingridients must be listed.
coca cola doesnt run on your cpu. but non-free software does.
we can't be forced to use non-free software just to survive.
in my country nobody ever has id with them. during ussr also nobody did. in other ussr places police enforced it.
ok the main difference is that before this you could refuse to have some advantage / convenience like netflix but you could use floss.
you could use cash and not give banks data when and wtere do you pay.
here the difference is that it's no longer your choice.
how can a floss system obey such law? floss browser can't show netflix.
if floss code checks my age, then i can change it and recompile.
so i guess if a linux distro will implement it, there will be drop in replacements of that code. someone would implement the fix and distribute.
and we'll fix our floss systems.
in my case, i dont use distros, i build my systems myself. how can they force me to build the code i dont want?
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 14 at 13:12:
@norayr : "in my case, i dont use distros, i build my systems myself. how can they force me to build the code i dont want?"
Let's hope they _can't_ force you. That's something open-source platforms have going for them.
Sooner or later, though, on-line services are going to insist on ID. You can build your operating system, and you web browser, so they don't demand it, but the services are going to assume you're an infant.
I'm not saying I support any of this, only that I can see where things are headed.
that's fine, many online services do now, i don't use them.
but the problem is there. because most of people dont build their systems.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 15 at 10:28:
@norayr : the problem is that more and more online services require age verification. I don't use any now but when (for example) IMDB starts doing it -- and they will -- that will be a nuisance.
That's why I think we should be campaigning for privacy-preserving methods of age verification, rather than saying "We won't do it." I know what happens when we tell governments we won't do it: they end up forcing us to do it, badly.
Not necessarily.
NYC tried to charge for parking on sidestreets requiring a special aop. They installed signs and painted around 20% of free spots in the area I was staying. People complained and signs disappeared.
If everyone is against idiocy politicians may listen.
Although if they hadclaimed it saves children, who knows.
👻 darkghost · Mar 15 at 17:12:
Other parts of NY state still do this. I got a parking ticket for missing the sign.
🐦 wasolili [...] · Mar 16 at 02:44:
That's why I think we should be campaigning for privacy-preserving methods of age verification
There is no highly effective method of age verification, let alone a privacy preserving one. Even if you succeed in getting a "privacy-preserving" method accepted for now, when it fails to stop teens from accessing porn, these groups will say we need stronger forms of verification, and when those don't work, they will say, "aw shucks guys, online age verification doesn't work, the only way to save the children is to ban all internet porn. we should have done that from the beginning because porn is bad for adults and needs to be banned just like crack or fentanyl" because the ultimate goal of the groups pushing these bills is to get rid of porn entirely.
And at the same time, setting the legal groundwork for age verification has a secondary goal of eventually being used to suppress (and surveil consumers of) other content. Can you think of any other content that prominent political figures have been claiming needs to be stopped due to being harmful to minors? I sure can.
"we should tell them how to do this the right way otherwise they'll fuck it up" extends a level of good faith to the backers of these bills that should not be given to them. Their goal is not to do this right. Their goals are to get rid of porn for everyone and to also strengthen government control over non-pornographic content. Even if there was a perfect, private method of internet age verification, it does not matter because they don't actually care about that.
👻 darkghost · Mar 16 at 10:22:
Circumventing age restrictions will just be the 21st century version of finding your dad's hidden nude magazine.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 16 at 12:10:
@wasolili : "Can you think of any other content that prominent political figures have been claiming needs to be stopped due to being harmful to minors? "
In the UK I certainly can. Content related to self-harm and suicide, content related to weapons, all kinds of violence -- there are constant calls to restrict all these, and more. In the UK, I would say that pornography is a low-ish priority for age verification, but it's in the frame right now, because it's easy to target.
Let's be clear: what's targeted is the OS makers and the software industry as well as our freedom. Content is secondary. The means of distribution is the perceived weak link. The state needs to be in control of the media.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 16 at 15:30:
In the UK, I'm almost sure that the motivation for age verification really is child safety. The legislators are going about it badly, and the half-hearted implementation will be damaging for privacy, but I really don't get the sense of an ulterior motive. Almost everybody I speak to is 100% behind it.
The UK implementation isn't being driven by social media corporations, because they're carrying the burden of it.
In the US, though, it definitely smacks of bad faith. The California/Colorado plans are stupid, and will achieve nothing of public benefit (but they probably never expected to). As much as I dislike the UK way of dealing with this, the US way is worse.
today eu forces all web servers that provide services it eu to comply with gdpr, and lets say we see it by sites ask us if we agree to get their cookies.
eu doesnt force users, but servers.
so why not forcing porn providers to conduct age verification?
you wanna watch porn? that site won't let you until you give them your id. oh you don't want to give them your id? don't consume that shit.
though of course that would lead to the porn sites that accumlate lots of personal data.
i think they still do? they have to earn no? so they get paid via cards?
but frankly using a vpn is so easy every teen may learn it and access whatever they want so all these measures won't help.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 17 at 13:14:
@norayr : "...using a vpn is so easy every teen may learn it and access whatever they want so all these measures won't help."
To be fair, I don't think anybody expected, or claimed, that the age verification measures in the UK would be 100% effective. No measure introduced for any purpose, by any government, is 100% effective.
Our government claims that the number of kids watching porn has reduced by 60% or something. If that were true, I think it would be counted as a success. Unfortunately, I don't know where this figure comes from since, as you say, the kids are all now using VPNs for their porn.
👻 darkghost · Mar 17 at 15:18:
My kid uses a VPN without understanding why they are using a VPN. Something something security!
I'll be real honest. I'm not sure if kids getting their hands on porn is all that bad.
I totally saw shit I wasn't supposed to. I think I'm pretty ok.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 18 at 15:15:
@jprjr : I'd agree that there are far, far worse things for kids to see. The reason we parents don't like porn (in the UK) these days is because of its association with misogynist culture. Also, we're reluctant to expose young children to the kind of activity where you need a safe-word, because it can be dangerous.
And, frankly, porn is a soft target, because we all kind-of know what it looks like. There are worse things, but they're harder to define, let alone identify. That, I guess, is why there are calls to ban social media completely for minors.
you folks might be interested in
👻 darkghost · Mar 19 at 15:22:
Plenty of init friendly distros. And I'll use a GUI that looks like a papier-mâché project gone terribly wrong before giving systemd the satisfaction of knowing my age.
Governments in California, Colorado, Australia, Brazil, and Singapore are rewriting the rules of how operating systems work, and one developer has responded by registering his software under the law's own definitions, citing the exact statute, and declaring intentional noncompliance on his front page.
What's driving this legislation isn't purely a child safety agenda: there's a $2 billion lobbying shadow hanging over these bills, and the company at the centre of it stands to gain enormously while its rivals absorb the legal exposure.
Today, we break down exactly how the laws work, why volunteer-run Linux projects may face thousands of dollars in fines they have no way to pay, and how one $12 piece of hardware is being positioned as an act of civil disobedience.
— https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html
systemd has implemented age verification.
I think there is a script out already that removes it.
— https://lunduke.substack.com/p/systemd-adds-age-verification-and
👻 darkghost · Mar 22 at 01:24:
There are also many init friendly distros, and BSD too
I imagine BSD-based OSs will have to comply as well...
@stack:
The idea of Gavin as president is actually more revolting/scary than Trump
I don't like Newsom one bit but, do you have any situational awareness? Trump is quite literally rounding up undesirables and sending them overseas to forced labor camps without any restraint. He is destroying any semblance of a social safety net the US once had. He collaborates with known techno-fascists.
That isn't to say I like Newsom—far from it. I don't like any politician. But to say that just because of some bullshit privacy-grabbing law that he's worse than Trump is an... interesting take.
~~~
@norayr:
i suggest other law: what if we forbid to use proprietary software till the 30?
because it can harm, make young brains addicted, and get used to constant surveillance and control by random entities in pursue of profit.
Actually kind of based tbh. If I thought laws were actually a good thing then I'd probably support this.
~~~
@lars_the_bear:
Sooner or later, though, on-line services are going to insist on ID.
The moment this happens, I'm just not going to use that service. Excluding things like banks which need my ID anyway, there's only like 2 proprietary web services I use (namely Discord and YouTube) and I'd probably be fine without them.
If you look at his trainwreck California, the fraud and tax hell of the US, the place people can't leave fast enough, you may understand my statement.
As for Trump... Sending "undesirable" (actually, criminal) non-citizens (from prisons) home is the least of my issues with this administration.
Sending "undesirable" non-citizens home is the least of my issues with this admibistration.
how, in good faith, can you call yourself an "anarchist" and still think "citizenship" is a meaningful thing that wasn't invented to control people.
All I see is people being forcibly removed from their communities by the violent gang we call "ICE", oftentimes taken to camps with horrible conditions or to places they previously left due to it being extremely unsafe for them.
I've said before that I am a terrible anarchist.
No, I don't believe in borders and entitlements, but I have to live in this world, and have to share it with other people, including the majority who elected this president largely on this issue.
It would be wiser to accept the loss and regroup, and find an _electable_ candidate instead of throwing tantrums and trying to throw the chessboard into the air.
The damage done in terms of human trafficking and suffering in order to bring cheap labor into this country, and the desire of some states to not deport prisoners who are forced into free labor corporate work camps, is horrible. There is no good way to unwind it, and the propaganda machine protects the Empire, using well-meaning people.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 22 at 18:28:
@zipsegv : "The moment this happens, I'm just not going to use that service."
That's always been my attitude, too. But what's going to happen when you need verifiable ID to do _anything_ on the Internet? Even a DNS lookup? Even Gemini?
My experience is that politicians, when thwarted, tend to react by implementing even stupider policies. Like (in the UK) trying to ban VPNs becasue people are using them to get around age verification.
@lars_the_bear yeah no, we're in agreement. these laws are really bad in general.
GrapheneOS is refusing to cooperate. See HN
— https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47479183
👻 darkghost · Mar 23 at 17:53:
OH NO now I won't be able to buy a GrapheneOS device in CO or CA!! Wait a minute.... I still can't buy a GrapheneOS device there now! I have to get a Pixel and pave it over!
Somehow I think TempleOS will not be complying either... Maybe it's time to listen to what God is saying.
Original Post
What's going on with california and colorado age verification? — Do they actually have anything to do with verification? Everyone is using the word verification, but any source that actually gets into what the bills require does not talk about verification. It seems to me that the laws are just about collecting age-based information, and using it to not show porn to minors. There seems to be no requirement to actually verify the information they collect. Am I completely misunderstanding what...