- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
So then is Android excluded? Or because it is owned by Google...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
A new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup
- Thread starter MrGuvernment
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 17,881
probably google
apparently not the mainstream androids that are more than simply an open source project compiled, those are excluded, so samsung-google-etc... phones android, it is the entire distribution model that must be under full open source principles to get the exemption uder AD 1856.
https://www.tomshardware.com/softwa...he-gpl-mit-bsd-and-apache-licenses-are-exempt
Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android remain fully in scope, with age collection required at account setup from January 1, 2027.
Whether SteamOS is in scope isn’t yet clear: its Arch-based system components are open source, but Valve distributes the image alongside the proprietary Steam client. GrapheneOS, which in March said it would refuse to comply with age-verification mandates, is distributed under open-source MIT and Apache licenses and now falls outside the law’s scope entirely, though Brazil’s Digital ECA still applies to it.
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,525
It's so stupid that they need to specify which OS isn't exempt. Throw out the law already, it's stupid.
Last edited:
disagree, the law is not stupid at all, inspired by good expert it seem to be.
Best place technologically wise to do this to protect privacy and user experience (as a state that generate a lot of revenue from the industry and want to protect it)... OS level, for the regular Apple, android user that use a credit card linked to their account they will never known anything changed....
Much better than the Texas, australian and others laws that are less influenced by the industry and care way less about the customer/user experience consequence and do not care about privacy implication like this one do.
No law, which demands my operating system know who I am, is concerned with privacy. This, not unlike cameras everywhere, is all about hoovering up as much data as possible.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 14,461
The answer as with many things is it depends.
Base Android (AOSP) is excluded because it's distributed primarily under Apache 2.0. Most community custom ROMs will qualify for the exclusion. However, proprietary versions like Samsung's One UI most likely won't qualify to be excluded.
The Pixel used to qualify under GPLv2. However, Google has made moves in recent months to make the Pixel source code harder to obtain, putting it under possible violation of GPLv2. It may signal that Google intends to move their Pixel line away from the open license model and therefore won't be excluded in the future.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
The law is not good, it requires everyone to prove their age, it is the slippery slope to associate all internet activity to an end user and collect more data and info (i do not care what is already out there...)
The law is a push by Meta and others to move liability OFF their platforms so they can do what ever they want, and then blame the "OS" if it gave an age token that did not fit, which will then force the next law to be ID must be uploaded and verified (by Persona and other breached providers) before you can even use your device.. we know how that will then go.
Again, this law has NOTHING to do with protecting children, it is about moving liability OFF Meta and others, so they get a free pass, just like the recent court decision to settle with Meta for another slap on the wrist fine...
If you have world control.
If you have california and big tech, you see all around the USA and the world laws to force age verification and built by parents-regulator that either do not know much or care much about privacy issues.
California care a lot for its product-company to stay popular and has a lot of lobby pushing for the best technological solution, this where you have at OS level generate unique anonymous tokens by the OS for each demander making tracking really hard to do is the obvious and best place to do it, if you are to do it. California and law has no control if age verification will occur, that is a fact it is already occuring all over the world, so if you care about privacy and a good user experience, you whish that your law will become the model the rest of the world follow, protective move by big tech.
Yes that why that type of laws keep control into parents hands, allow anonymitiy, hand so on... something that would actually not allow child to use big tech product even if their parents (because it make meta responsible over the parents) do not mind would require a long list of stuff I doubt people complaining about this version to do it proposed by this law would prefer.
But this law is one way to avoid this (versus the other laws in the world that do what you are describing), with the California proposal you must make unique tokens that has nothing to do with each othres for every individual third party that ask you for a age category, to make it really hard to use this as a way to associate all internet activity to an end user, that what using your local OS make easy instead of a third party website signup or other possible alternative.
Both the crypto and asking for age group instead of birthday help to do this, it is well written by actual expert consulted with privacy in mind. And for about all case here, the OS-Apple/Google combo already know who you are (and has your credit card info linked to the account), it is not adding info there.
Last edited:
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,525
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These exemptions are just a stay of execution. If Linux picks up in popularity then it's just a matter of time before they remove Linux. There's always the idea that people will remove these ID verifications just like people rip out TPM 2.0 and even the need to login to a Microsoft account. Good expert indeed.
There is no ID involved with this too (well indirectly via credit card if you had already entered one), it is 100% volountary. It is self declaration, the only scenario that it is ever used it is when a parent (or school, camp, etc...) create an user account for a child and they want them to surf the web as a child in the eye of certain platform...
This laws is written by the big tech industry that want to avoid to a maximum people just stopping using the website-platform that will be touch by the child protection laws, it is I am almost certain the if anything is done in that regard how you want it to be done.
StevenJamesBorchard
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2025
- Messages
- 315
So I am very late to the party as always.
Has someone already mentioned here: " In before civil cases about parental neglect and/or just giving their kids the access" ?
Has someone already mentioned here: " In before civil cases about parental neglect and/or just giving their kids the access" ?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
It is not written well with privacy experts in mind, sure they consulted some and then ignored most of their concerns., one I follow who has been around in this sort of things since AOL and always has good insight as to what is really going on.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulwalsh/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulwalsh/recent-activity/all/
Also, Apple does not have my credit card as I have not bought anything on my device, so nothing associated there, nor do i use tap NFC payment either. I know for many they do, and yes, I could sort of agree, since Apple has this info already, they can confirm your age.
In terms of children, iOS and Android have had control for kids for many many years, but parents are too lazy to learn the basics. Control should be decided by the parents at this level.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
The point is, this is step 1, do an age check based on a range..
Then they will find kids "lying" and choosing 18+, and some lawsuit will come up that Meta and others will then blame the OS for allowing someone to fake their age, so you will then see "ID must be uploaded to verify age"...
Just like the social media bans in the UK, VPN usage sky rocketed...so of course, some politicians, who have no bloody clue, started to suggest banning VPNs.....
Local control is one, outside platform is an other, this law is a bit making it easy for parents and the internet side of things to make kids control in a more universal way.
Which are, some really big points they listened:
) Zero ID, you self report your age
) Never give an actual date of birth, just age range yes or no
) Individual encrypted token per age group demander
Those 3 things, help privacy and tracking quite a bit, it is really hard to see what more they could do, what the biggest privacy concern expert has with this california proposition (if you are to make such a system exist), it is a strong consensus that OS is the best place to put it and that seem obvious and that api design/way it work seem the best you can do
Yes I am sure many parents group and politician will try to push big tech into making it worse.
But it is an extremelly strong lobby that want to reduce friction the most as possible and will defend itself and continue to try to buy politician to accept the kind of california laws, there could be a non parents bit of revolt and the lawsuit more targeting the parents that bought the device and let the kid create its own account with it, a young child rarely buy its own device with zero parent supervision.
There is different subjects,
) should state get involved at all (around the world that not even an if anymore, it is happening all around the place)
) if you are to do anything laws wise, how good is the california version by itself, versus the other project (it seem by far the best in comparison and do look quite good even without using the terrible comp)
) if society and voters do not thinkg that the limited hand off, self-volontuary california style that want to protect the industry-user experience is good enough what will happen next, but the answer I think, what is already happening without this law, this law is an effort to stop the inevitable already happening to continue.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 14,461
Which sounds good in theory, but best behavior is subjective depending on who is doing the judging so all it really does is suppress dissent.
Definitely a bot or you drank way to much cult juice or are retarded if you believe this is benefit us.
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,525
There is a bit of a difficult, if X then Y....
If there is to be age verification laws then the california one is the best proposed one and hoppefully will become the model, is a position you can disagree with (and because age verification laws are already happening and on the book all around the world, the if part become less and less necessary)
People just answere with meme to this statement without specific argument being made for a reason I think.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,709
The problem with all the "can't do that" laws is just how easy they are to get around. Which in many if not most cases, means the very "thing", that is, the benefit of the law, isn't actually realized.
What it often does is create burden for those outside of the intended beneficiary. Possibly to the extent of punishment, fines and even, imprisonment. Again, all while *not* doing the intended thing.
People with zero clue crafting law. Consult. Get help. It's ok. Then, maybe create law.
In California's case, just another brick in the burden of being a Californian and particularly, a business in California. "I wonder why they are leaving?" (raises hand: I know!)
What it often does is create burden for those outside of the intended beneficiary. Possibly to the extent of punishment, fines and even, imprisonment. Again, all while *not* doing the intended thing.
People with zero clue crafting law. Consult. Get help. It's ok. Then, maybe create law.
In California's case, just another brick in the burden of being a Californian and particularly, a business in California. "I wonder why they are leaving?" (raises hand: I know!)
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,525
What you don't get is that we don't want ID age verification laws. They won't protect children but they will help identify you on the internet. It's the same situation with Flock and Data Centers in that nobody wants it. Only the government wants it and that's because META and other lobbyist are pushing for it.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,251
We have listed the reasons..
Move it to the OS --> people will falsify their age --> New law forcing ID to be provided to verify actual age --> everything you do with in the OS can now be associated to the person as they provided ID --> goodbye more privacy.
All of the tools needed to protect children online already exist, and have existed for many years already, in the devices them selves, when it comes to mobile devices. Both Android and Apple provide parental controls, but parents do not educate themselves over it. Next, force actual change with in social media companies, Meta was gound guilty with proof of their manipulation of children, but the U.S settled instead of actual forcing real change...
This is exactly where this will go, the history of the world and abuse of politicians and those in power prove this, they start with a proposal, it gets shot down, they trim out the scary parts, give it a year or 2 and then throw those scary parts back in under some other bill to get passed at the last minute before a deadline and tadda!
Just look at the 9/11 patriot act, it was abused the day it was put in...and in the end, did nothing to increase national security, all it did was invade citizens in their own country of rights to privacy.
Last edited:
that what many people in society will want, for this to be 100% volountary and friction less, versus having to scan document and send them, it is quite possible that voter will want this version (they decide of course here).
It is not easy for third party to use android-apple child account without an universal api (which this mostly what this law try to push).
Say you are polymarket and you want to let anonymous adult use bitcoin to place bet from a browser not a native app, how does android-apple current parental control help you limit that service to adults only ? at the app store level the os itself can do it of course.
Laws to force ID are getting on the book, that the already happening affair, this at least is a good attempt for it to stop to grow worldwide.
At least you do understand that this is by far the best system proposed of all of them that has been around the world right ? If there is to be one, that seem like a good way to do it ? which was my only point being made.
There is no ID involved here too.
the california version is by far the best version to make tracking or ID the user the hardest, crypto unique token by demander that goes only by broad age category, will not help you identify you on the Internet much, all other alternative that pop-up and risk to arrive if this version do not catch on are way worse.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 7,068
I think its possible to say that, from a technical and privacy perspective, the CA approach is better when on the OS level it simply passes along a token and has no massive independent, external verification necessary to obtain that token. This provides plausible deniability IF there is the push for these sorts of age verification laws so that the tech companies can say they did something, without more invasive compulsions. However, all of this is predicated on the idea that such a law, or technical implementation thereof, is necessary , "inevitable" or otherwise , which it is entirely justified to argue against. Its sort of a "Well if you're going to be shot in the foot its best to do so yourself, with a small caliber bullet that passes straight through, in an area that does minimum damage and allows quickest healing with return to full mobility" situation set against "Why have they convinced you to shoot yourself in the foot at all?! Its unnecessary that anyone get shot in the foot to begin with!" Both arguments can be technically or morally correct, but it comes down to assessing the conditions to decide how to proceed at a given time
At this point I think we should be leveraging resisting these facile surveillance demands from the start. This is not yet the time for harm reduction half measures, while there is the opportunity to prevent validating the idea that such restrictions are necessary at all. There's a much larger discussion that I think we need to engage with, especially given to the absolutely disastrous Meta settlement recently that basically means blood in the water for all the others sensing weakness and wanting to get their bite in too.
With all do respect screw you with that roll over and take it with no lube attitude. It's all to much there is no worst or better way when it comes to screwing us over. Today it's this "good", law tomorrow it will be full scan id to turn on your phone or PC
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,525
How you going to verify their age? With a photo? You expect children not to lie about their age? Give it a few years and the law will change to require ID, because of course it will.
sharknice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,125
That would be racist against black people and married women.
That is actually a legal precedent that already exists in California.
They have it on the books that user-selectable age input does not meet the minimum safety requirements, as kids will lie about their age, so they can't use it for a bunch of things.
I assume that California requiring this out the gate with a user-selectable age is a stepping stone. They put this in and leave it like that for a year or 3 for it to become normal; then they change their requirements to meet their other regulations, and then they will force them to update to use a verified age, aka submit a photo ID.
This law is the proverbial foot in the door.