This is how the democrats lose the next election.
GJ snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Again
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
546 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
83831 readers
3457 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
still have no idea how they will implement this, with phones that can be rooted or running something like lineageOS or others.
But in any case, I am glad I am not from the US.
The app "5 calls" is free, free of ads, and free of tracking. It will provide you with the phone numbers and emails of your representatives and senators. It will also provide you scripts so that you can speak directly on each potential topic. You can also set up daily, weekly, or monthly notifications to remind you.
They can’t even arrest the pedophiles in government but they want to mass surveil us for everything.
Those are not contrary, but complementary things.
Yea so you quit taking badly about the pedophiles in government.
I see how this is bad from a privacy standpoint, but how does it affect device ownership?
I would argue it does not directly or obviously impact device ownership. However, to the best of my knowledge, it would be the first time that the US Government has publicly required a specific set of features for consumer software.
To make matters worse, this is an Operating System level requirement, which means it has more permissions than any other piece of software you run. Every device you run today has an Operating System of some kind, so this bill could impact all devices.
So, I think the conclusion that you no longer own the device stems from the fact that it has software on it doing things and collecting information you did not approve. For normal people, there will be no way to avoid it. Tech savvy users will of course find ways to dodge it unless there are enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are sufficiently punitive.
Definitely not a path we should be going down if we actually cared about freedom, much less privacy. Not to mention, this opens up the whole “slippery slope” argument for more direct government control over software.
It could be a dangerous path indeed, giving the government full access to your phone. I'm not sure the bill says that though.
But I think most people already do... A huge bunch of apps collect everything they can on you; tiktok used to be the worst. I wouldn't trust a government less than a private company.
I dunno, maybe forcing companies to put (or remove) specific features on their software could set an interesting legal precedent: it could be used to stop companies from pushing features people don't want or designing apps with dark patterns.
Yeah, you are right that we already have huge attack surfaces from apps on phones and the phones themselves.
I also agree some regulations and/or laws that prevent companies from engaging in their shady practices and dark patterns would be great if they were enforced and were not simply used to prevent competition by the large companies. I won’t hold my breath though.
If you don't control it, you don't really own it. Modern cars can be remotely disabled on the whim of the car maker. Is it really YOUR car if someone else can cripple it or completely disable it without your permission?
It's already the case with your phone if you use OEM OS: manufacturers can do pretty much whatever they want remotely.
Now it's the turn of the computers: either it has a "compliant OS" (remotely controllable by 3rd party), or you will be cut off a growing part of basic use.
Probably in the sense that you are basically at the mercy of a company that can shut you off of you computer, phone or (depending how far this goes) car.
Ok but isn't it already the case anyway? How would age verification make it easier?
This is absolutely not the case, and has historically never BEEN the case.
Think of your computer like an old CD player. If you own the player and the CDs you can play them. Forever. NOBODY else gets a say. You can't be stopped. That's what ownership MEANS. It means YOURS. Not right now - not a license - not until you don't get a security update - not "as long as you don't try to play CDs we don't like on it"... it means until either you or it physically DIE.
This is how EVERY SINGLE THING you own should be, and every single instance where that is NOT the case is one where something has been stolen from you - every bit as much as if I walked into your house, picked it up, and walked out with it. If my taking something from your house and walking out pisses you off, so should this. I have no idea how to make "I have paid money for something to then have it taken away from me" more anger inducing than it should already be.
It is not always the case today. For instance you can now use Linux on your computer with a local account called myaccount, not tied to your identity in any way. That, by the way, used to be the case with Windows too, until Microsoft killed local accounts not too long ago.
In an age-verification world, if a Linux distro wants to do age verification, you would have to connect to a third party that can certify your age somehow; I haven't read enough on this to know for sure, but I can't think of a way to do it without telling that third party who you are, uploading your id or similar privacy-unfriendly things.
Now, that third party has acquired a power on your ability to use your device that they don't have today.
Then your OS will have to store you age (and hopefully only that) and share it with any of the installed apps that need to verify it, which opens its own can of worms
I'm not sure, but it could erode it when someone else decides if you're old enough, or maybe later have no convictions, or maybe you're a reporter the government doesn't like, and you can't even verify into the devices you own.
I've seen a lot of people saying how this will be unenforceable and so isn't something we need to worry about.
Except this could be enforced. Google came out with a proposal a few years ago for a method of validating the a request came from a "trusted" (aka, signed and with secure boot enabled OS), ostensibly to combat bot traffic. They dropped it after push back, but it still provides a blueprint for how this could be enforced.
https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity
If web platforms are mandated by law to enforce something like this then the web could be effectively restricted to only approved operating systems. There could still be a dark web, but with the weight of the law behind it, once anything gained momentum access to it could be shut down at the service provider layer.
This shouldn't be dismissed as a threat because it's "unenforceable", because it is.
I mean… What’s easier, implementing an unpopular APi into your already production ready service or blacklisting a country from making requests to your reverse proxy?
Personally I would choose the latter. Enough blowback from people will likely get this overturned.
EU has dumped similar legislation out however, they recently have had a poor streak in regards to legislation involving digital privacy.
You assume commercial apps will choose to lose the US market rather than comply.
Big techs are all ready to comply with chinese authorities in order to get in! Apple did. Facebook tried repeatedly to get a pass, offering complete access to chinese authorities.
Corporates will just do whatever makes more profit.
Commercial software publishers will bend over backwards no matter what.
Selfhosting folk have it significantly easier and I’m sure a lot of people rely on small obscure websites.
It’s worth writing your reps!! There’s usually an easy way to contact them via their website
To paraphrase someone:
You need to win every time. I need you to lose only once.
Anyone thinking that this won't pass this time, or next year, or the year after that or the year... They will push this as a new thing, wrapping the same bullshit lies in a new paper each time...
Eventually it'll pass, it always does. All they need is patience
The only possible cou ter to this is to enshrine the right to own a computer and internet access into your constitution or something like that.
You need to win every time. I need you to lose only once.
We Europeans are well aware because of the Chat Control that they are trying to push here.
We have to be vigilant and fight every fight.
Never give up.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Does me tapping my order into a self-service kiosk at a restaurant count as "using" the operating system that it is running on?
Like, I feel like this is going to be really difficult to enforce, and big business might actually push back against it if they think it will hurt their bottom line, but my god can we stop with this nanny state internet surveillance bullshit already? The government is too stupid to actually protect anyone with this dumb law because there will always be loopholes and workarounds.
You're missing the point.
1.Few will work around it, which will make anyone working around it de facto suspicious.
2.That law can also be weaponized as an intended side effect: all dictatures have vague un-enforcable laws for the sole purpose of making sure anyone and everyone is somewhat guilty of something. That eases considerably arbitrary arrests: there WAS a lawful reason, every single time!
Tell your reps that this bill doesn't get a chance to breathe if they ever want your support in future elections.
Or a parent could, I don't know, just parent their own kids instead of expecting the government to.
I got so many downvotes last time I suggested this, it was just comical to me how many people get pissed at the implication that they aren't watching their kids, while not watching their kids.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›