Colorado verlagert Altersprüfungen von Websites auf Betriebssysteme
Colorado moves age checks from websites to operating systems
Colorado verlagert Altersprüfungen von Websites auf Betriebssysteme
Colorado moves age checks from websites to operating systems
18 Kommentare
It was never about the kids it’s about control.
I can get used to not having any devices that support state revenue.
Yep, fuuuuck that.
Which operating systems? What about old operating systems? I have a PowerBook 190cs from the mid 1990’s with Mac OS 8.1 that can still do a few internet things, does that count? What about server operating systems? Do I need to age verify if I’m spinning up a Red Hat instance? What does this mean for developer operations? Or companies that use computers for day to day activities?
This bill should have been aborted the second it was detected, but I suppose its authors don’t believe in those either.
This law seems to force Apple, Google, and Windows itself to have an age verification requirement. It’s a Colorado law, but many other states are working toward the same concept.
There is no protocol for transmitting age data from OS to website.
You’re not going to get such a protocol because it requires international cooperation.
You’d have to be lobotomized to think this is a good idea.
Bill sounds like a radical improvement over every tech firm needing my id check. Age verification is inevitable, this is a sensible way to do it. You can continue to argue hypotheticals. Happy this is happening in my state too!
2 Democrats introduced this. Just so we’re clear that they are the enemies too. Republicans and Democrats have different problems but they’re both still authoritarians.
My treadmill does this, which is insane to me. Guess what happens when my 11 year old wants to use it?
…
Probably the right move.
I live here, I’ll call these MF, everyone e should
Lotta hate in these comments but this sounds like a vast improvement if age verification is inevitable. If your on windows, android, or apple your OS probably already knows your age. I’d much rather have my OS simply saying yes or no for age verification than scanning faces or photos of IDs. This is far from perfect. People will find ways around it just like all other methods. I’m interested in hearing other ideas if verification is unavoidable.
This is actually in keeping with the current federal KOSA legislation, which calls for a feasibility study into device or OS level age verification. KOSA (SB 1748) still hasn’t passed, but it probably will. And, when it does, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (sorry, Linux) will get together and hash out an internet standard, and it’ll be done in six months, and then the three of them will race to see who can implement it first.
And then that’ll be the end of it. To view a porn site, it’ll ask your device for a token, then your device will ask a higher level if you’re of the required age (without saying what you’re viewing), then your device will say, „He is this old,“ which then gets tokenized and sent back down to the website, thus granting or denying access.
Y’all really gotta read laws.
What’s even more fucked up is it would be so easy to have a DNS provider that was controlled by a transparent entity (like cira in Canada), and write a law to enforce ISPs use the safe search or family safe DNS on the router, unless people request it be loosened or changed. Problem solved.
Right now, it’s just theatrics
Here’s my counter proposal.
Age verification API, Websites don’t care if you’re 18, but if you’re explicitly marked not-18, they block you or alter website functionality.
This functionality could readily be built into OS level parental controls and is totally voluntary, but works with existing filters and could be adopted by school districts and religious groups as well.
Instead of demanding proof that you’re an adult, you can instead insist that the user is a child or does not otherwise want to see explicit content.
I don’t think a javascript api like „window.SFW“ = true is that difficult to implement considering it’s a similar concept to detecting if an OS uses dark mode.
More strict filters can detect whether or not a website or app implements/respects „window.sfw“, and block them accordingly if they don’t.
Adoption becomes a manner of adopting „window.sfw“ in order to get the majority of users.
If they can make a thing that detects dark mode, or something like Do Not Track, they can make an API that has a boolean that says „yes, this person can’t/won’t consent to explicit content“ and serve content accordingly.
This headline is extremely misleading. „Colorado moves“ implies it’s happening. It’s a bill. It’s not law yet. It might become law, and I personally hope it doesn’t. But the headline is false.
They really want us to move to Linux….
And it’s odd cause I always thought that Colorado was this left leaning/ libertarian state, all of the sudden they want to monitor everyone?