lol. americans don’t do shit

I fucking hope so 🏴🏴🏴🏴

Sir, this is Lemmy. We came here because we were banned from Reddit. That's about the extent of our action against the system that runs our lives.

Eat the rich

And written by a Democrat.

They are literally never your ally. A lot of us refuse to accept that we have 2 parties that don't give one solitary fuck about us because it means we have no say whatsoever in our government, but Democrats prove time and time again that this is the case.

The most we get are a handful of "representatives" that somehow managed to beat AIPAC and all the corporate interests that buy the rest of them, but that handful isn't enough to actually force meaningful change or to prevent the worst from happening. :(

I don't think they think they're an opposition party, and they certainly wouldn't oppose mass surveillance. They never have.

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.

Why not both?

I fully expect the government to pull this shit, but I'll parent my kids not to tolerate it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with kids

It has nothing to do with kids it's just an excuse to push more surveillance

Those are not contrary, but complementary things.

The rules have always been for us, not for them.

The police are enforcers for the elites, they don't stop crime, they extract fines from people and provide a deterrent to anyone standing up for themselves.

Yea so you quit taking badly about the pedophiles in government.

That's because we are dangerous (to the rich's interests)

Yes. I suspect this is all because we successfully arrested Epstein.

They worry we won't actually stand for their kidnapping and raping our kids, unless they strengthen their grip.

That would require them to arrest themselves, because everyone in the roles that deal with that are themselves pedophiles.

that's just another American Value, naming bills as sarcastically and ironcally as possible

What if you are not even a parent!

As a parent I am deciding not to comply.

In fact this is the opposite of parents deciding. Parents can already decide.

evidently Palantir wasn't able to use all available data and a few glaciers to find out who was saying mean things about Important People With Money. This oughta fill in those gaps.

we're due for a modern re-framing on rights and personal autonomy.

but we might need to design it fully as local coops and roll over the epstein-class in order to get it enshrined.

if you let them change it, they'll, (as obtusely as possible,) re-phrase everything to not actually accomplish what it was supposed to.

we need big changes, and we need them yesterday, because the future is here and it's fucking us all up. the only people with the time and social placement to affect change are the ones that have been coddled into that position through either nepotism or corporate interest. yadda.

still need voter reform... hopefully the next people voted in specifically on voter reform don't just go "oops actually we weren't for that at all, hee hee." (canadian liberal party are also just the backup conservatives i guess)

and my god, there should be some accountability for directly lying to and misleading the voter base. the number of USA politicians i see that can't answer a fucking question is embarrassing to anyone thinking they don't live in a fascist state.

like, those promises, or statements, or blatant intentional incompetence should come with some form of accountability. if i fuck up too many lattes i have to live on the street, but politicians can laugh in your face after doing fuckall and taking your money.

generally anyone willing to take a position of power to hugely affect all of our lives and well being should be scared shitless for betraying their voters so blatantly.

more than anything we just need a whole new damned system which is built on modern science and not hundred years ancient aristocracy. it is possible. the only reason it doesn't seem feasible is that the people with power and influence have been spending a weird amount of their excess ensuring that the system doesn't enable or benefit anyone outside of the epstein class.

yadda yadda rant rant, i'm tired.

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.

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.

Our constitution? They've got that thing hanging from a nail in the shithouse.

I'd have photoshopped an image of Satya Nadella giving head to Donald Trump and made it my desktop..

"Recall" this! Microsoft!

Never thought I'd see the day that a corporation as notoriously incompetent and milquetoast as Microsoft became a defacto Gestapo enforcer.

Abolish the 2 party system while you're at it.

We have to get lucky every time. They only have to get lucky once.

The thing is, this horseshit is only happening because adults have let computers - more specifically, iPads and phones - become their children's babysitters.

Have you seen any of the "iPad Kids" videos?

Holy shit, what fucking irresponsible parents.

I was reading a list of bills and whatnot from March the other day. They all say "and for other purposes" they all say that

Unfortunately, nobody really cares about this shit either way. No chance this costs dems an election, especially considering support for age verification laws have generally been bipartisan.

You're a bad person for pointing this out. /s

You stole my exact comment.

How can anyone not trust that face!? I'm sure this is all very well-intentioned!

If you read this law bill in the strictest way, it makes almost no sense. It says that anyone who makes or controls an operating system has to check the age of every person who uses it. But it does not limit this to big companies. That could mean volunteers who help build Debian or even someone at home making their own version of Linux. The law bill would expect them to build a system that asks for (and verifies) a birthday before you can use the computer.

It gets even stranger with websites like GitHub. If someone downloads shared code and uses it, the person who posted it might be seen as responsible. But they have no way to know who downloaded it or what they did with it. The law bill would still expect their system to check ages and share that information with app makers.

They have many ways to do this if they want:

• go after US entities, like the Linux Foundation. They only need to go after enough to make them fall in line
• Make it illegal to distribute non compliant systems, including downloads
• Make it illegal to operate or even possess a non compliant system

Even if they don't go after individuals they can do a lot of damage in restricting trade and business use of something. The mere threat of legal action is though to make business owners nope out.

It's already risky to draw attention to yourself by using privacy focused phones when traveling. It's the ultimate "if your have nothing to hide why are you worried" situation.

They're forcing legitimate users to either give up or go underground and risk being seen as criminals.

https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-Integrity

This was a proposal a few years ago for how to enforce "trusted web". Basically, a way for service providers to verify, at a per request basis, that the client is using an unmodified software stack, starting with an operating system signed by a trusted developer. Could absolutely be modified to enforce this shit.

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.

If I understand correctly, Android already has something like this: the Play Integrity API. It's responsible for rooted Android devices being unable to use banking apps. iOS might have something similar. And the term for this if you want to learn more is remote attestation. It's far more insidious than devices with locked boot loaders.

The EU is pushing very similar things...

Literally Meta has been caught paying people through shell orgs all around the world to pass this kind of legislation.

with phones that can be rooted

... for now. Samsung removed the ability to unlock the bootloader in an update.

And yes, there are other options. But Google is also cracking down on the openness of Android. I certainly can't take the ability to root as a given.

But in any case, I am glad I am not from the US. Windows is made in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if they push this crap to the rest of the world too. Same with Android and IOS.

Wouldn’t GrapheneOS have the Linux kernel and therefor also the same age restrictions? Genuine question here.

It's fucking Linux.

If you really wanted to, you could make a fork of your favorite distro and remove the age-gating shit yourself.

Do you wipe your ass with that phone?

they have a 180 day period to define the regulation and a year for it to be contacted and implemented.

This has a familiar smell. The 3d printer "gun printing prevention" bill(s) that are floating around have the same "we'll figure out the actual law after the bill is approved." And here I thought that punting congressional authority to executive agencies was bad. Now they're not writing laws, but instead, blank checks for vague things within even more vague legal outlines.

In a more general sense, it also resembles the work being done to level this requirement at online services as well.

Ultimately, the only way to really enforce any sort of age verification system is to force all content providers to have an age verification step.

My biggest fear here is that this will have teeth, and will be crafted so that the only feasible way to make it work is to be 100% cloud connected behind federally approved vendors (e.g. Apple and Microsoft).

No script for this topic

That's fucking funny

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.

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.

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.

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.

We can't kid ourselves that it would stop with the US. It's too much of a low hanging fruit for governmental overreach.

But tbh I really wonder how would this even in open source. We can just strip out the age verification part and call it a day.

Speaking and educating does not work anymore. And that really only works in democracy.

All my reps are Republican. They’ll throw my letters in the trash.

They aren't going to scrub the open source history... You can always just use the last version of whatever before the age check is added, but also there's plenty of people who are just going to release versions without the age checks... There's already https://agelesslinux.org/

I'm trying to think of the last time they passed a law that actually helps people. I'm coming up with the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 lol.

In 2023 Ohio held a vote to legalize weed. Part of that bill was that business owners could sell lower quality delta 9 in places like gas stations, corner stores, ect. Drinks with THC were allowed at liquor stores. I'm not sure about bars, as I don't go to bars.

That bill passed overwhelmingly. Legalized pot for everyone!

Well, we're about 2.5 years since that happened, and without a vote, they have restricted parts of that bill.

Instead of 12 home grow plants, as the bill was passed with, the final legalization only allowed 6 from day 1. Now it's 3.

Stores that are not dispenseries are no longer allowed to sell the lower grade stuff.

There are stores that popped up, purely to sell the lower grade stores. Then overnight are closed. No longer legal.

Mind you, all of this was approved in a vote, 2 years ago.

My point is, these republicans do not give ONE FUCK about what people want, and vote for. They'll just change the rules and disregard the will of the people, and change the law without voting.

So 1% chance have a 100% chance if you don't give a fuck about votes.

Pretty sure that reflects its stage in the legislative process, not support/opposition. i.e.: out of 100 bills that get introduced, only 1 becomes law.

What was the projected chance of Trump getting nominated, let alone winning an election?

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!

This is just the first step. Soon you'll need a government ID to operate your network card, then they'll control what you post, the thoughts you can have.

Try thinking for yourself while you still can.

Exaggerations? Either we put them in a simulation of hell, or they put us. That's where we are at.

All means are justified!

There is some nuance to the language, and there might be litigation to follow; but age attestation and age verification are wildly different things:

Age attestation is just providing a birthday, like many sites such as steam, require before accessing most games. There's nothing stopping a 10-year-old from claiming to be 30.

Age verification, though, will be more of a legal process: requiring government documentation, biometrics, ai data harvesting, tracking, etc. and will result in the OS theoretically being required to keep your specific pii to provide to downstream consumers of this data.

Those of us who grew up in the age of the early Internet have 'handles' or 'usernames'. Those that grew up in the later Facebook age use their real names. Us elders see this tying of identity to computation as an invasion of privacy.

I've had this handle for decades across multiple platforms. I've probably identified myself, but you would need to put in at least some work to figure out what human being I am. We call that doxxing right now, and it's generally seen as hostile. This bill eradicates even that layer of defense by requiring my computer to know who I am, and sharing that data with Meta, Google, Facebook, Lemmy, etc. effectively my computer will doxx me.

While the intermediate result is not that my privacy is instantly compromised, anyone with a clue can see the future here: if the OS knows who you are because of this law, then the browser can know who you are, and the website can know who you are and when you say things the government doesn't like, you can be... Removed.

This is what we call a chilling effect. And that is also generally understood to be bad.

This bill, and all others like it, are bad.

Edit: And if this bill is defeated, there will be others. This is not going to end, and each version will be an existential threat to privacy.

Most people in this thread have no clue what free speech is apparently. But Yankees love talking about how much freedom they have, so if that's what it takes to rally them, so be it I imagine?

There's a host of other reasons people can't take Americans seriously, and I assure you that acknowledging reality is not one of them lol

I don't think it is wrong to be concerned about this. We live in an era of mass surveillance and control. This is just one more tool that governments and corporations can use to control and surveil.

It starts as a DOB field but then escalates to an always online requirement where your full identity is passed along to every app and website. We've seen this happen across mobile phones and social media; I don't want it on my PC.

Just make it illegal to buy a PC without an ID, problem solved.

Steam believes I'm somewhere between 62 and 126 years old. I don't think Steam's birthday gate is going to qualify as age verification

The supreme court that will do anything for a bribe and has already pissed on the constitution?

How exactly is this unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution do we have a right to privacy? SCOTUS has ruled in past cases that some portions of the Constitution create zones of privacy or protect against government intrusion, BUT they most recently ruled in Dobbs that a woman's medical decisions should not be private.

Don't look up