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

Privacy

4136 readers
69 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
 

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"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Take it from a Brit... It's not about the children. It's never about the children.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

One of the architects of Project 2025 confessed on secret camera that the purpose of age verification laws is a de facto porn ban.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm sorry but you're using that term wrong. You mean a de jure porn ban.

A de facto porn ban would mean that you actually couldn't get any. And that's just ridiculous.

Like drugs are illegal de jure, but de facto getting weed pretty much anywhere in the world is not a challenge. Usually even easier than getting alcohol as an underage person. Not that I have experience of that in the past few decades (being underage that is).

I mean I guess it's "de facto" in sofar that it's not exactly presciptively de jure illegal when it's done like that. So in that sense you are right to use it like that, but eh. I disagree with who I was when I started writing this. No matter we're on lemmy.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

Maybe for them. But for governments in general the point is that age verification is ID verification and it means everything you do online or on any electronic device can be surveilled and tied to your real identity. And that makes political dissent a lot harder to organize without being shut down.

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Why do I need to show my ID to install Gentoo?

[–] sudolinuxjunkie69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Because how can Persona (and the government) know who is using Gentoo without an ID requirement? What is someone doesn't use javascript when browsing the internet?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (9 children)

i hope people talking about him as a potential president remember this; he's a conservative robot who doesn't give a shit about you.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

"Age verifications" AKA "A complete ID and access record of all that you do on your personal electronics." This is some seriously dystopian surveillance and control shit and it has nothing at all to do with children.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

This bill, beginning January 1, 2027, would require, among other things related to age verification with respect to software applications, an operating system provider, as defined, to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforceable. So, in essence:

  • The OS should have an accessible API that returns the age bracket of the user, presumably for the purposes of eliminating a lack of compliance on apps using children's data for advertising. That's not necessarily a massive problem, though I don't like the idea of age brackets, I'd prefer it if it's just a "Adult" vs "Child" bracket.

  • It doesn't seem to be asking that the age be verified through some external provider, so simply stating the age of the user is enough.

  • App developers are expected to always request that information on launch/installation, which is simply not going to work because how would you enforce it for software made before this law came into effect?

  • The definition of "covered application store" is way too broad and covers basically anywhere you can download software, including things like public docker hubs or Github, so no that's never going to work out. Apple and Google can maybe include the request for age brackets and provide that information by default as part of the SDK, but legacy software? Good luck getting WinRAR to request that information. You've essentially banned all software made before 2025.

So... The OS-level stuff isn't a huge deal, but the requirements on app developers are way too strict and would be unworkable. If I were to re-write the bill, I'd make it so the age bracket must be available at the OS level, but not required by the app developer to actually use it. I would then add more strict requirements on sites to not use children's data for advertising, with the reasoning being that they could have asked for the age bracket from the OS at any time, and the fact that they didn't even bother means they actually wanted to use children's data.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The bigger problem IMO is the implication that a device/OS must have a defined "account holder" that is associated with an actual person with an age. Nevermind that there isn't any verification happening that could de-anonymize a user or be breached - as an administrator, am I responsible for ensuring users only use a specific account with the correct age identified? What about google or apple? Are devices meant for children to be locked down so that new users or accounts can't be created to circumvent restrictions?

This law is too vague to have any meaningful impact on child safety, and the implications behind it make future erosion of privacy far more likely.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That's not even accounting for server racks. Servers run operating systems too, and a server doesn't really have a 'user' as such. Sure there's the admin account, but there isn't a definitive person you can tie that to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 72 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He can go fuck himself. "Dems are the good guys!!!" Fuck off. This isnt about protecting kids. Its about tracking, profiling and data collection. No doubt to sell to 3rd parties. Fuck all these cunts who push this shit.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

There's no fighting 21st century fascism without breaking this law.

This is so much more effectively evil than ehat the trump admin has been doing holy shit.

This might genuinely be world leading evil.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 38 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Mandatory os-level

Cute attempt, but libre software - as always - remains superior and impossible to control. That's by design. Write any law you want, I can modify whatever line of code implements this stupid check, remove it, and move on.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 days ago (5 children)

On a PC that isn't so hard to do. The problem though is that online services will start requiring the os level check which itself will likely require phoning home to some service.

Plus open software on phones and tablets is still in very early stages.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Coincidentally, my birthday is 1900, January 1st.

[–] Mesophar@pawb.social 6 points 2 days ago

1970, Jan 1st is better for this situation

[–] Zeon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The whole point of the GNU/Linux operating system is for free speech. Whatever you're trying to do California, it's not going to happen. I refuse to run any proprietary software on my machines. It's astounding that any porch for freedom is just gets blindly attacked by a bunch of uneducated fools. What a boring dystopia we live in...

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 4 points 2 days ago

What is the point of bucketizing the actual age when anything querying it can simply note the date at which the user shifts to the next bucket to determine the exact birth date even if it never sees the exact birth date?

Furthermore, what about a common login like on a media PC?

What about a Steam Deck that gets shared around a household?

This is all very dumb. Could be a lot worse but it's still very dumb.

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 154 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Good luck enforcing that on Linux.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 116 points 4 days ago (6 children)

That's probably the point.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft and Google lobbied for this to prevent open source from encroaching on their terf

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 128 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You just know that when a bill is titled "Protect the little children from eternal suffering bill", it's gonna contain some real fucked up anti-privacy nonsense in it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sudolinuxjunkie69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Computer code is a form of speech. It is mind-boggling to me that California wants to assert its rules over all FOSS software.

If California is able to do this, what stops them from next requiring Arch to be bundled with ID-checking Persona as part of a mandatory GUI installation?

Maybe Arkansas wants a mandatory "governemnt module" in Fedora to allow easy remote access?

Perhaps Dubai would like ProxMox to ping Dubai's government so they can create an IP registry of ProxMox users?

And since so many developers use github, will github just ban developers who don't comply?

I understand that such a rule could undermine Project 2025's objectives, but it is still a slippery slope.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago (12 children)

This is probably the most dystopian child safety bill so far.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago

Most dystopian "child safety" bill. Let's not legitimize the claim that these laws are made to protect children while having privacy-invading side effects - they are privacy-invading laws disguised as child protection, while failing to have any real impact on children's online safety and wellbeing

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Gavin is as slimey as his hair.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 61 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (9 children)

Read the link yall

The bill requires:

  • OSes to take user birthday during account creation
  • this info is binned into categories (<13, 13-16, 16-18, >18)
  • the category info must be made available to basically all software
  • software is supposed to use this data to age gate content but is not allowed to send this data to 3rd parties

What this bill does not do:

  • Your full birthday is specifically not to be sent to every application
  • OSes are not being asked to check your id it doesn’t say the OS should do anything to verify the birthday, just that it should record it
  • There isn’t anything to prevent you from entering 1/1/2000 instead of your real birthday

Honestly this doesn’t seem that bad to me. If anything it’s a little pointless. This style of age verification is basically universally already used. I guess you could read this as forcing OSes to have parental controls.

I do think there is a bit of a privacy issue in this information being shared with every program, but they attempt to minimize this using the binning (so ironically it really only hurts the privacy of teenagers since for adults it will just say >18), and this information is supposed to not be shared with 3rd parties (but we all know Facebook and Google are going to do whatever they can this info, pushing the limits of that part of the law, or just waiting to be sued and paying the fine when it happens).

I honestly think most Linux distros will just implement it.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah, no

First off, this is just another step, and if you believe it's the last one then I have a nice bridge to sell you

Secondly, this won't work in practice. Software is being developed all ove the world by single nerds to scientists to little kids, to small software companies to huge software multinationals with hundreds of thousands of developers.

99.9% of the world doesn't have these rules and won't give a shit about what California wants. Do you believe that the app developed by some random kid in a random country will start checking age just because newsom wants it? Ok Boomer.

And IF this system allows you to put in whatever date, then what's the point, beyond some security theater?

This bill is absolute horse shit and won't go anywhere because this is not how the world works. This will likely end with citizens in California having a really really tiny amount of software available to them legally

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Honestly this doesn’t seem that bad to me

A state governor doesn't get to decide what kind of data libre software must or must not collect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chaitae3@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Even with binning, it doesn't prevent the date from being learned. All an application would have to do is ask for the bin every day. On the day it changes you learned their birthday. It only works for <18s, but isn't that specifically who they're saying they're trying to protect?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 3 days ago

It's still pretty bad and senseless. We all know how antis, nazis and conservationists are: you given them an inch, they'll try to bite your entire arm off, not to mention leaving an infection behind.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 days ago (9 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.

load more comments (9 replies)

Lovely aint it?

Can't wait for the big wigs to start sponsoring bills going after whistleblower protection.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 82 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I apologize for this being posted about 2 weeks after the bill was signed, was going through my usual methods of checking news and new laws and found this.

Now terminals will read: “GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law, and contains code known by the State of California to cause cancer or other reproductive harm.” /j

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

While I oppose this with every inch of my being I do look forward to seeing some super tongue in cheek implementations in Linux distros.

export $AGE

Linux dev sitting there like: well, my work is done.

[–] hobovision@mander.xyz 40 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Please update your title to remove the misinformation about the bill, specifically calling it "OS-level ID verification" is not even close. It's not got anything to do with personally identifying information or any actual verification of age information.

It's actually an incredibly privacy conscious method of doing what it is trying to do, which is to allow parents to set up a child's account with their age information on a device and have that age bracket information passed to websites and applications. That way, it makes it harder for a child to bypass age-restrictions, but without requiring dangerous age verification methods such as ID or face scans.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bullshit. This is not a voluntary thing that parents can choose to do or not: it is an enforced, mandatory requirement that is foisted upon literally all programs, regardless of user choice or whether it makes any sense at all to do so. Oh, and there's a penalty of TWO HOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for EACH VIOLATION for EACH CHILD.

Download a foreign video app on your smart TV that doesn't comply? Congrats, the pigs will fine a three-child family $7500 for the crime of watching manga.

You live in the US. You know that this will be unequally applied to the poor and minorities. You know that this will be used as an excuse to search people's devices at massive scale. You know that companies will simply shrug and use face ID anyway, because they already have to do it for other locales, so why not just reuse the same process? You know that this is a foot in the door for the facists and capitalists. You know all this, so stop running interference for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago

seems like MS lobbying group.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 51 points 4 days ago

Fuck that stupid bullshit.

load more comments
view more: next ›