this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
310 points (94.0% liked)

Privacy

4136 readers
94 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
310
California passes law requiring age verification checks for all operating systems | Governor Newsom signs bills to further strengthen California’s leadership in protecting children online (www.gov.ca.gov)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AB-1043 "Age verification signals: software applications and online services."

Text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

Other info https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

California AB 1043 signed. Mandatory os-level, device-level, app store, and even developer-required age verification for all computing devices.

Edit: altered title from "ID check" to "Age Verification check"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

(b) If an application last updated with updates on or after January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that user before July 1, 2027.

(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation

So a developer of a FOSS application that gets installed on a device on California via a 3rd party app store (maybe F-droid) must have implemented a query to the OS for this data. Even if the app does not actually provide any inappropriate content or actually any content.

Nor does it matter if he is involved in the distribution of the app to California, a FOSS app redistributed via a 3rd party (F-droid maybe) would make the developer subject to this.

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

According to (f), the user is officially the developer of a FOSS application:

  • The user is the owner of the binary. (Although with copyright restrictions)
  • The user often maintains the application by installing updates. (In FOSS applications updates are rarely forced)
  • The user controls the application, as FOSS gives users control.

In some cases (such as the Arch User Repository or the Gentoo distribution), the developer does not even give the user an application but merely source code. The user creates the application.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is no mention of binaries in either f or c. Possession of binaries does not constitute ownership of an application, ownership of software means holding the copyrights.

But even if we abuse this definition we simply make whoever installs the application liable. In a lot of cases that would be a parent. It could also be the user since the law doesn't state they can't be the same person.

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The word 'application' means the binary. The source code is not the application.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's your opinion. It's wrong. There even are applications that do not have binaries at all. There is no reason to believe the legislators would not want them covered by this law, it certainly does not say so.

It also does not make a difference, owner of the copyright of a binary is the owner of the copyright of the source code. Compiling does not remove the copyright of the source code author as the binary is clearly derived from the source code. The person who compiles the source code does not even get any copyright since it's not a creative process.

You are not helping FOSS by trying to portray the law as FOSS friendly when it isn't. Unfortunately the law rarely is FOSS friendly if not due to hostility due to indifference/ignorance on the part of the legislators.

[–] TheLazyNerd@europe.pub 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That’s your opinion. It’s wrong.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don't have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I'm not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

Also, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright. The laws specifies "a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application".

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it's owner.

Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it's copyright. It's been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don't even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.

You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that's in violation. Which is obviously not what's intended.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it's spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So a developer of a FOSS application that gets installed on a device on California

would make the developer subject to this.

And they're going to do what exactly to a developer that doesn't live in California? I won't add any kind of age verification to my bioinformatics projects and I'll keep issuing releases. Are they going to nuke Brazil? Block GitHub in California?

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Since it's a civil case I doubt they could enforce payment on people outside the US. I am not sure if they can collect from people in the rest of the US but they probably can.

I suppose not complying with a court order could result in criminal charges. Brazil will not extradite you but you will not be able to visit the US.

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 3 days ago

you will not be able to visit the US.

That's fantastic news, so I win and keep winning in that case. Great, no age verification on my software.