Technology

Obviously everyone here hates this, but I'm gonna offer another perspective here and prepare for the down votes I guess.

There is a very good argument for OS level age 'tracking' as a means of creating a cohesive environment for software and websites to operate without having to implement individual age verification. The biggest actual issue here is how the OS determines what the user's age is. If this is implemented similar to what California has done, the OS would simply ask for the user's age at setup, and store that value, which can then be reported to programs and websites as needed. This would allow parents to setup a device for the child and not have to separately implement parental controls on every individual conceivable program, which are often easily circumvented. This would undermine any individual website's attempts to use age verification as an excuse to collect government ID data, and the security risks inherent to that.

There's no need to put any kind of validation onto this, it should simply be self-reported.

Now admittedly I don't trust our government to implement this in any kind of reasonable way so I definitely understand and respect the outrage, but I guess I'm just trying to find some positive aspect of how this might be implemented.

Palantir really wants it's fucking database.

All because Petey truly believes that there are demons living in the United States.

Has Bipartisan support too. The corporations want this, and both of our parties listen to them first and us a distant second. Catering to corporate wants is about the only thing the two parties can agree on. It's probably going to pass, even if I hope it doesn't. Buckle up my friends...

Thats the day I leave windows for good.

Could the supreme court shoot this down?

A few years ago, due in part to frustration with our information environs, but also for fun, I decided not to get internet after moving to a new apartment. I didn't have real internet for about 2 years. I did have 1GB of data per month through my phone service and used my phone or a mPCIE 4g card as an uplink for text-only internet. I restricted myself to JS-free http applications or light protocols like gopher, irc, rss, etc. I quite enjoyed my time having to be very mindful of my data usage. It forced me to fully audit all the technology on my LAN.

If this kind of legislation passes, I simply won't pay for internet. If both ISPs and telecoms start restricting devices, then I'll forego cell-based data as well. If public wifi spots become too restrictive, I won't patron those spots. I've accumulated more offline content on my server than I could ever consume in many lifetimes, so it really isn't a loss. Hell, it'd be an opportunity to organize it all well, and share via meshnets. Don't tempt me with a good time, politicians. I could save money, nerd out, and cut the noise from my information environments? Sign me up!

edit: I wanted to add: I do really like having a fiber link, but the main draw is having the ability to host my own services. If that goes away due to hierarchical pricing or device/encryption restrictions, 95% of the value prop disappears. I will not be strong armed into using overly-centralized services.

Isn't this against the 10th amendment?

Rules being implemented and enforced by actual pedophiles

Finally, the year of linux is coming.

The Internet is built upon and requires anonymous participation! This is an attempt to end privacy...

Okay, what is this bill actually saying?

That soon, you won't even be able to own most computers without registering it under a government ID?

Because that's fucking nuts.

Now do you see why I don't trust government?

Because it does things like this. And it's not just our US government doing it. The entire world is getting more and more authoritarian.

Government seeks power. Always. Which is why it must always be restrained.

Yup, from the party of pedophiles

Meta, etc pushing this so that they don’t have to.