Kalifornien führt ein Gesetz zur Altersüberprüfung für alle Betriebssysteme ein, einschließlich Linux und SteamOS – das Alter des Benutzers wird bei der Einrichtung des Betriebssystemkontos überprüft

Why does an Operating System require an account and why does it require knowing your age?

The operating system’s only job is to communicate between you, the applications, and the hardware.

Not great but at least there’s this…

“The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require „commercially reasonable“ verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks.”

Because nobody ever shared a computer…

The age verification is voluntary in this model — which makes it worthless.

And it doesn’t take into account the user/account, so a family’s shared computer can’t be used by adults and children — which makes it worthless.

And it has four incredibly stupid age classifications — which makes it worse than worthless.

This is what happens when technologically illiterate legislators are bribed to enact TechBro wet dreams that they simply don’t understand.

It doesn’t require id verification, yet. I think it will in the future

Can you just ignore it? Like just because a state decided something it seems a bit overkill to make all platforms comply right. The UK also has id laws but they made it specific for them.

I’m assuming this is supposed to work like age verification in a bar.

It would work better if they have a default of “I have no age, use most restrictive setting you have”

Medical devices and cars have operating systems. Rather than inputting your age, just say your car can’t go into a bar that serves alcohol.

Do lawmakers ever talk to technology experts before drafting these bills? We can point out the flaws in less than ten seconds of the elevator pitch — long before the expensive litigation begins.

What in the George Orwell 1984 is going on in California?

This is just dumb

Once again, parents don’t parent and the state uses that for overreach. Maybe we need better parenting and a bill to block all social media that isn’t parent approved. Make approval a repeat act like drug testing.

So why not setup an OS without an account? There is a way to do this & bypass the account requirement with Windows using the Rufus installer tool. It basically gets rid of this step completely & loads a local account instead.

maybe it’s just me, but the legal language seems not to distinguish between app stores and local installation that may or may not receive the age bracket „signal“.

what I really don’t understand why *every developer would be required to query the signal (1798.501 (b)) if the application does not do anything age-relevant (a text editor, for example).

it will also be more fun to have an age check for service accounts, as in databases etc.

This is just the start – it’s a test. They (Californai) wants to see if you push back – when you accept this and put in a wrong date – they will then do the next step.

They want you to sleep walk and accept this way until you have no choice and then start implementing id’s on every single thing.

Those in California need to start making a noise now – not till it’s too late!

Too bad kids these days have no idea how to use a computer let alone install an OS or they could just bypass this with tech savvy. Maybe this will inspire them.

This is one of the most misunderstood good ideas floating around right now.

It’s been pretty clearly established that expecting a parent to be able to manually review and understand each and every app on their child’s device is a losing battle. On average, most parents are less tech savvy than their kids, so many parents are forced to choose between banning devices entirely, or accepting that they have little to no oversight.

How do you design a system that allows parents to keep their kids away from inappropriate content without violating privacy? The best suggestion i’ve heard so far in many circles is device level flags that are opt-in. Something where a non tech savvy parent could still reasonably be expected to say „this is a kid’s device“ during setup successfully. On the other side, most developers of app that may contain mature content would kill for a simple os level flag. „Check this one flag and our liability protection is done? Sign me up!“ These kind of opt-in setup flag are the best suggestion I’ve seen for privacy-preserving parental control architectures. All the other suggestions i’ve seen either require identification, or are easily bypassed by a tech savvy child.

They’ve done a terrible job marketing this idea, but it’s the best compromise i’ve heard so far.

What in the China.