Damus
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) profile picture
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
@David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
So, I have actually read the text of California law CA AB1043 and, honestly, I don't hate it. It requires operating systems to let you enter a date when you create a user account and requires a way for software to get a coarse-grained approximation of this that says either 'over 18' or one of three age ranges of under-18s. Importantly, it doesn't require:

Remote attestation.
Tamper-proof storage of the age.
Any validation in the age.

In short, it's a tool for parents: it allows you to set the age of a child's account so that apps (including web browsers, which can then expose via JavaScript or whatever) can ask questions about what features they should expose.

In a UNIX-like system, this is easy to do, with a tiny amount of new userspace things:

Define four groups for the four age ranges (ideally, standardise their names!).
Add a /etc/user_birthdays file (or whatever name it is) that stores pairs of username (or uid) and birthdays.
Add a daily cron job that checks the above file and updates group membership.
Modify user-add scripts / GUIs to create an entry in the above file.
Add a tool to create an entry in the above file for existing user accounts.

This doesn't require any kernel changes. Any process can query the set of groups that the user is in already.

If a parent wants to give their child root, they can update the file and bypass the check. And that's fine, that's a parent's choice. And that's what I want.

I like this approach far more than things that require users to provide scans of passports and other toxically personal information to be able to use services. If we had this feature, then the Online Safety Act could simply require that web browsers provide a JavaScript API to query the age bracket and didn't work unless it returned 'over 18'.
5
Dave Rahardja · 3w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqncxka2nmkqkndk4wkuf3tz3l39z9m8xax3aen3h8tvudwgjmf5mq4uv2v2 We already have parental controls in many OSes. Why do we need a law that specifies a particular implementation?
· 3w
That's how it always starts.
cava · 3w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqncxka2nmkqkndk4wkuf3tz3l39z9m8xax3aen3h8tvudwgjmf5mq4uv2v2 Pretty sure the law **requires** all apps (not just web browsers) to query for a signal, otherwise the Dev is in violation. I don't see a requirement for the app to actually show age...
Iron Bug · 1w
@david_chisnall well, it is absolutely useless and absurd for operating systems. if they want to play some utter idiocy like this, let them write their own user level software and sell it to those who want to play that idiotic games. others have noithing to do with paranoid ideas.
Eleanor Saitta · 1w
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqncxka2nmkqkndk4wkuf3tz3l39z9m8xax3aen3h8tvudwgjmf5mq4uv2v2 Fuck this fascist collaborationist bullshit. You know full well this isn't going to end here.