Device makers doesn’t sound like operating system to me. Just need to make sure there is a distro that the device comes with which does this. So if you make ToBeReinstalledOS which only comes with an age checkbox and USB media creation tool to the bare minimum compliance required and no network drivers to prevent accidental age verification. Your device is compliant and can be sold in authoritarian countries.
I don’t care about this issue because I don’t have kids /s
I assume this is so the paedophile president can stalk users by age, cause it definitely does nothing to protect kids
Sorry kid, gotta verify your age to use this ti-84
If a local ‘date of birth’ field defaults to ‘18 and up’ if unset; the bracket is communicated using an open, standardized format; specification is on a trust-basis, without external verification required; and the field automatically unsets upon turning 18; I might not be that opposed to an implementation like this.
But without a requirement for legal presence within the state of Illinois, any application developers without it, cannot really be held liable for any infringements on it. Bad actors might also learn which internet users are of which age bracket, and this all might be the beginning of another very slippery slope, where requirements keep building as a result of misuse and/or ineffectiveness.
Yeah, such a standard could be great. But at this point I have no confidence in any governments pushing for that sort of thing. I would be ok with great parental controls. Government controls can fuck off.
Good.
OS level age gating is the best possible solution. It means a parent can simply set an OS level account as a child’s and that’s it. No IDs, no verification process.
This is going to be used by everyone from pedophiles to advertising agencies to target children at unimaginable levels. This is legitimately about as big of a mistake as you could possibly make if your intentions were actually to protect children, and the biggest win of all time if you are any form of child predator.
They can already target children through existing means. This doesn’t change anything for bad actors.
Pedophiles aren’t being blocked from finding kids on Roblox because they don’t have an OS confirmation that the person checked a box saying they’re roughly a child, and legitimate companies can already do this through the numerous existing ways of determining user demographics.
Targeted advertising is not a problem that is solved by OS level security, it can only be solved through legislation targeting the actual harmful practice. A user spending any amount of time online will always leak enough data to figure out roughly who they are, especially with AI tooling that can do pattern recognition orders of magnitude more effectively than anything that came before.
OS level account setting is by far the simplest and least intrusive method of having some kind of age verification. Parents setup their kids account then the OS transmits the signal to the server. No IDs, no government involvement, no databases.
Labeling children as children and then boxing them off is making them vastly easier targets. You really think pedophiles aren’t still going to be reaching kids on Roblox because of this? You really think this will be an infallible system that 100% determines the person using the device at that time is a child? Predators will find ways around this, the children will be easier targets, and the parents will all be even more carless about their children’s online activities because they will think exactly like you.
I don’t believe for a minute that this will be a ‘give us a rough age at setup’ situation. That would be entirely too sane, and place responsibility on the parents to do anything.
Microsoft is going to want your SSN and full facial scan “to protect the children”.
K, keeps being scared of stuff you make up in your head and watch nothing ever happen.
Then the simple and least absurd answer is to make it optional for the client and mandatory for the server to respect it if it’s there.
Valid in a weird way, I couldn’t let my kids online before they can hide from the government
Please insert identity verification probe.One more gate to walk around
I was born in 1901, January 1st.
I was born in 1900-01-01 or alternitively in 19(current year)-(current month)-(the next day or current day)
What scares me is the future of this push.
In Australia, after their U16 social media ban, 4 in 5 U16’s still accessed social media they were banned from.
When these bills have little impact b/c minors figure out how to get past age gates, there will be pressure for more draconian measures. It isn’t like the ppl pushing these will shrug and give up. They will demand more and more erosion of local control. More and more corporate lockdown.
It’s like only criminals have guns, but with age. Endgame is everyone (formally, TLAs have known for a while, but that’s not as chilling for free speech) identifiable online, because fuck anonymous free speech.
2034: Only criminals will have Linux
I wonder if this would be challenged as a 1st amendment issue. For everyone in Illinois, they will be denied government digital resources via compelled speech.
Of course, I don’t expect any sane response to this. If anything, I expect .gov sites to start requiring a selfie with the president to prove your patriotism.
I submitted a photo of pedophile trump to identify myself on instagram a couple of years ago when they forced me to supply a photo or lose my account. They accepted the photo.
I no longer have an instagram account, I let them keep the photo.
You don’t have a Trump phone? What kind of filthy traitor are you?
I’m cinnamon flavored if that helps
My kid was born 1970-01-01 on the same day I was.
Me too!
That’s epoch!
That’s a numberwang!
How nice of the world’s computers to all communicate the time based on how old Jolteon and Jolteon Jr are.
Just Eevee. They haven’t evolved yet.
We share the same birthday but I was born in 1969
Nice!
My family all shares that birthday too, but we were born in 1932.
omg i also share a birthday, but I was born on 1900.
It is terrible. But there is a ray of good news in there too. Not for IL sadly, but for other states that went on this path,
The bill picked up language exempting operating systems and developers distributing software under terms that let anyone copy, redistribute, and modify it freely. It also added a clause blocking platforms from locking down modified versions.
California’s AB-1043 had the same gap. Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, the same lawmaker who wrote AB-1043, introduced AB-1856 to fix it. After several rounds of edits, the amended bill redefines “operating system provider” to exclude anyone distributing software under those same open license terms.
The IL law does not have those carve outs. So ti’s way more draconian than the other states listed.
Don’t give an inch. These people have no interest in safety or privacy.
