Top
Best
New

Posted by WalterSobchak 1 day ago

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification(www.pcgamer.com)
692 points | 595 commentspage 13
kkfx 21 hours ago||
Aha... Interesting, I'm the sysadmin of myself so I verify myself that I'm entitled to be root on my iron. Sometimes politicians reveal themselves in their future program dreaming things like mandatory online accounts on corporatocracty-controlled servers for all...
m3kw9 12 hours ago||
I thought Europe would do this type of stuff
Ylpertnodi 9 hours ago|
No need. EU cookie banners seem to have won the day by pushing the US actually on to the slippery slope of whataboutism.

we're not far behind.

OutOfHere 23 hours ago||
It's getting to be time for tech firms to leave California.
platevoltage 16 hours ago|
To which freedom loving state should they go?
anikom15 10 minutes ago||
New Hampshire
2OEH8eoCRo0 1 day ago||
Extremely stupid that this will fall on the OS.

Accomplishes three things: Demonizes age verification, big tech gets to dodge it, cedes more control of your PC.

ReptileMan 20 hours ago||
Trump - making heroic efforts to give Newsom the presidency in 2028. Newsom valiantly resisting those efforts.
platevoltage 16 hours ago|
Newsom really is a royal embarrassment. I'm glad people are finally realizing it.
ta9000 20 hours ago||
Many of you commenting haven't read the legislation and it shows.
ddtaylor 13 hours ago||
Linux doesn't care. We've already been down this road with media codecs and patents. Let every other OS continue their path to enshittifcation.
monday_ 23 hours ago|
One could cope that this regulation can not apply to Linux or other OSS operating systems. But this is only true unless the bootloaders on consumer devices are mandated to be closed next.

We already have Secure Boot, the infrastructure is in place. It is currently optional, but a law like this can change that.

maemre 20 hours ago|
The law is written so broadly, I think it applies to them already: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

> (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.

This is basically any program.

> (e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

This would include any package manager like dnf/apt/pacman/etc. They facilitate download of applications from third parties.

> (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

This sounds to me like it would include distro maintainers. They develop and/or control the OS. Also, would this include the kernel devs? How would they be responsible for the myriad of package managers.

The overall law reeks of politicians not knowing what they're legislating.

More comments...