Forget about Discord - this proposed legislation in Colorado requires each OS user to have an age associated with it. I wonder if they're worried about children pretending to be adults, or adults pretending to be children.
-Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date or age of the user of that device to provide a signal regarding the user's age bracket (age signal) to applications available in a covered application store;
- Provide an application developer (developer) that requests an age signal, with respect to a particular user, the technical ability to call an age signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, the user's age-bracket data
- Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with the bill. An operating system provider shall not share an age signal with a third party for a purpose not required by the bill.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
OS-Level Age Verification in Proposed Legislation in Colorado
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 30 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by corey on Tuesday February 24, @10:11PM (9 children)
Hehe. In first with that.
More seriously, if this goes through there are questions around what if the OS doesn’t comply? Linux certainly wouldn’t, at least not all distros. If they don’t care because Linux is sub-5% desktop (or whatever the number is), then Linux deployment will get a little bump.
I’m torn on this these days. Whilst I come from a privacy conscious background, I’m starting to think that the internet needs some form of age limit applied through technology. It’s clearly not working currently for them. See article below. It’s the Wild West. You can’t have kids walking into an adult shop and buying movies. Etc. So why do we let them do the same thing virtually? And the online bullying is much worse than they’d get face to face.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/23/15-year-old-girl-misogyny-social-media-online-abuse [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, @11:55PM (2 children)
> I’m starting to think that the internet needs some form of age limit applied through technology.
Why do you feel that way? Rather than expressing your concern through content, please express your concern through studies and demonstrated effects, especially effects on the age-gated population. For bonus points, link your concerns to the concerns about Violent Video Games.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 25, @03:42AM
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday February 25, @08:30PM
Sure.
Have a look at the work by Jonathan Haidt.
https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research [anxiousgeneration.com]
And Jean Twenge.
https://www.jeantwenge.com/research/ [jeantwenge.com]
There’s heaps more, I don’t have time right now to dig it up for you.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Thesis on Wednesday February 25, @02:16AM (1 child)
> I’m starting to think that the internet needs some form of age limit applied through technology.
That's called Parenting. A lost art to some it seems...
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday February 25, @09:31PM
100%. My kids are young but once they start going online on their own (other than to play some online chess or maths game), it’ll be on a computer in a common space of our house like it was for the previous generation. That way we can keep an eye on it. I’m early millennial so I grew up with no internet until about year 11.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, @07:26PM
But, why not? Maybe they should legally be allowed to walk in to that shop and do that? Maybe that should be a parenting-level issue and the government should stay out of it?
Defining the real, actual, problem, is step one in dealing with it. Analogy: If your issue is that people are regularly exceeding the speed limit, then raising the speed limit is one of the simpler ways to solve that problem. But if your issue is that people are regularly driving at speeds unsafe for a particular road, that's an entirely different problem, which may or may not overlap with exceeding a posted speed limit.
Anything involving human beings and their culture is seldom a simple problem, or simple solution. Piling rules on top of rules inevitably leads to more rules as every edge case is defined in law, which leads to more edge cases because those laws don't cover something else, and then more rules for that... it's a trap. Fewer laws, more common sense, and let the courts handle the edge cases without piling laws on it.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 25, @08:14PM (2 children)
Why not? Explain, precisely, the harm that is done by kids seeing pr0n. Cite studies if you have them. Bear in mind that kids have almost definitely encountered nudity and sexually explicit stuff since forever.
And for some possibly relevant points: Teen pregnancy is down dramatically since the advent of the Internet. Teen pregnancy and STIs and self-reported sexual activity are down. If the kids are whacking off to pr0n they aren't getting diseases or pregnant or doing anything with somebody who isn't willing, which should be the primary goals here since all of those are documentable harms.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday February 25, @09:18PM (1 child)
I’m merely asking about the double standard. Why not let kids peruse adult shops? I guess that’s fine - they’re allowed in gun and alcohol shops, which are worse for society than sex.
But the difference is that online, they’ve got access to a much worse form of pr0n which you don’t find at adult shops. Denigration of women, male domination, other crappy stuff. I’ve seen numerous articles talking about this, young people with twisted views on sex because they were trained on it online.
My main point above was mostly to do with social media. But I guess the bit about adult shops was a side point.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 26, @02:49AM
I mean, there's plenty of the horrid stuff in the older forms of pr0n too. I wouldn't describe it as in any way wholesome. If I were to catch teens watching it, what I'd be trying to make clear to them is that it's fantasy, not how the real deal works, and if they wanted to do the kinky stuff there are ways to do that with a consenting partner but they look nothing like what they were watching.
But you don't solve that problem by attempting to stop them from watching it. And certainly not by demanding that all computers come with tools useful for tracking the activities of every single person online.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, @10:27PM
Fuck that, I'm out. Not doing any of this and not using anything that tries to dox me.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday February 24, @10:28PM (1 child)
At least it is comforting to know that people would never lie about their age.
Or any other personal details.
Maybe the initial setup process for a new PC should require a DNA sample?
Googling says that a blood sample can reveal age within a few years. So is a few years error close enough? Is it okay for a 16 yr old to pretend to be 19?
What if I can get my cat to provide a drop of blood?
Stupid people exist because nothing in the food chain eats them anymore.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday February 24, @10:37PM
As it turns out, the cat will only provide a drop of MY blood.
Stupid people exist because nothing in the food chain eats them anymore.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 24, @10:32PM
So as long as I am using a physical computer, tablet or phone, the whole law doesn't apply?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, @12:04AM (2 children)
This sounds like what some have called for to alleviate spam: a license to use the internet.
It won't work, because... (where is that checklist? argh.)
It sounds like someone who likes Microsoft was whispering into a politician's ear about Microsoft accounts when you get a new computer and create a user. Why, Microsoft accounts can have age verification, can't they?
I know! Lets make it illegal to use a computer without a Microsoft sign-in!! Coming Soon, in Windows 11 27H2, all of the workarounds to create local-user accounts have *finally* been disabled, and you *really do* have to create a MacroShaft account to use your computer. To be accompanied by another DMCA-like law, prohibiting the circumvention of "effective" age-verification checks on a computer system.
*Some government ID required.
truthfully it's probably all about finally, once-and-for-all, eliminating anonymity on the internet. Sure, you're anonymous, until the government doesn't like what you said - then you're 100% trackable as with all of your activities. That, and shaming everyone for porn, and just nixing it all in one go - because we know what their age checks are *really* trying to achieve.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday February 25, @03:05AM
We want your name, address, web logins, government ID, financial data, and records of anything own or are responsible for. Including the children, relatives, and any others you may associate with.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by owl on Wednesday February 25, @05:29PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Barenflimski on Wednesday February 25, @02:03AM (2 children)
I live in Colorado.
There is no shortage of idiot politicians in my state that continue to make terrible laws, and propose even worse ones.
I was fine when they legalized weed and quit throwing folks in jail for nonsense, but now they seem to be smoking it 24/7 and having real issues coming up with any decent, possible, practical laws. Its never ending terrible.
I haven't seen one decent piece of legislation in years out here.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday February 25, @02:24AM
Yeah, it might be a bit sensationalist or click-bait or something similar. I remember reading somewhere that in all states and federal legislatures many wacko bills get introduced and go nowhere.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 25, @03:44AM
We probably need to change the batteries in the TV remote.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bentonite on Wednesday February 25, @02:17AM (6 children)
A bill that explicitly attempts to outlaw free software OS's.
Too bad - I will continue to share 100% free software OS's without such spyware.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, @03:08AM (1 child)
They will simply order your ISP to report you.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Wednesday February 25, @10:42AM
Report me to the US government? Damn.
Too bad I'm out of their jurisdiction and I'm the most dangerous game (good luck CIA agents).
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday February 25, @03:24AM
Unless you're in CO, that would be your right. But, free software doesn't address this at all in any way. The software would still have to have that feature built in if the law somehow manages to pass. My personal suspicion is that any servers in the state that have the software will simply shut down and people will user VPNs to access servers outside of the safe, but like with a lot of other issues, being free software doesn't do anything to actually address the issue. It's largely a bunch of wishful thinking that works out as long as you in no way shape or form think about what's going on rationally
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Wednesday February 25, @02:57PM (2 children)
There is no reason why a Linux distribution shouldn't have a field in /etc/password or /etc/shadow that can contain an age.
Yes, of course that code in a Linus system can be removed because it's all open source.
But it would still be easy for an open-source system to be in compliance with such a law. All one would have to do is insert such code or fail to remove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, @03:42PM
In the old days, the comment field in passwd was often filled with comma separated data such as location in a building or anything really.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Thursday February 26, @02:26AM
Linux does not even read /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow? PAM and shadow handle that - an extra field could be added via PAM, but such babying wouldn't be respectful of the users freedom.
I don't get the relentless obsession with Linus, considering that Linus only wrote the first versions of Linux (for later versions, almost all of what he did was code review of other people's code) and how it's a GNU system.
While all of GNU is free software (and thus also happens to qualify for the 3rd party certification of "open source"), Linux isn't even "open source", considering that it contains proprietary software without source code and the typical proprietary GNU/Linux distro puts countless proprietary software packages without source code in the package repo's (plus proprietary software with source code, which is not "open source", like unrar too).
Such bills are typically drafted with requirements to obfuscate to prevent understanding and implement digital handcuffs to prevent circumvention of the restrictions, which would require the checking code to be proprietary software, without source code, which I reckon would be included in your typical proprietary distro without a second thought.
(Score: 2) by jman on Wednesday February 25, @05:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, @09:27PM
Logically, this will all be baked into hardware (a key logging terminal that you rent from the phone company, just like the old days) that will require you to insert a SIM card (or dock your cel) with all your personal info to operate the machine. Don't get caught using a "phreak box" :-)
(Score: 1) by fluffysheap on Sunday March 01, @09:33AM
... to focus on this proposed law in Colorado, when there's already an actual passed law in California.
https://natlawreview.com/article/california-introduces-new-age-verification-requirements-software-applications [natlawreview.com]
It's not yet clear how this law will apply to free software OS, whether it will be found constitutional, or how things play out.
Also, the title is wrong. This does not mandate age verification. It mandates only that the owner of the computer configure the age when setting up, which can then be read by applications. It's probably not very onerous, and also not very useful, and unfortunately probably also one step on the way to them actually mandating age verification. Linux systems, for example, could just configure a PAM module to record this in some file in /etc, and an extra command line switch to the useradd command. It would be an annoyance at most.