[fangpenlin]

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance:

- Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode switch bug cannot be patched...)

- 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

- Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

At this rate, California should just go back to the Stone Age. Modern technology is simply not compatible with clueless politicians who are more eager to virtue-signal than to solve any actual problems or even borther to study the subject about the law they are going to pass. There will be more and more technology restrictions (or outright bans on use) in California because it's becoming impossible to operate anything here without getting sued or running afoul of some overreaching regulation.

[SllX]

The incentives are all wrong. You can serve up to 6 two-year terms in the Assembly or up to 3 four-year terms in the Senate, but regardless of which combination you do, nobody in the California legislature can serve more than 12 years combined across both Houses of the legislature.

So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals, we have a resumé-building exercise that we call the legislature. They’re all interchangeable and within 12 years, 100% of it will be changed out.

[roenxi]

> So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals

Raises an interesting question of who is less popular, the Californian government or the US Senate. The experiments with long-term professional legislatures have generally not been very promising - rather than statesmen it tends to be people with a certain limpet-like staying power and a limpet-like ability to learn from their mistakes. In almost all cases people's political solution is just "well we didn't try my idea hard enough" and increasing their tenure in office doesn't really help the overall situation.

[AnthonyMouse]

The interesting middle ground might be to prohibit anyone from serving more than two contiguous terms in the Senate or four in the House. Then if you've done your two terms in the Senate, you can run for a House seat, do three terms there and then your old Senate seat is back up for reelection. Except your old Senate seat now has a new incumbent who is only on their first term and you're running as the challenger. Meanwhile there are more seats in the House than the Senate, so if you hit your limit in the House you could go work for an administrative agency or run for a state-level office for two years and then come back, but then you're the challenger again.

The result is that you can stay as long as people keep voting you back in, but you lose the incumbency advantage and end up with a higher turnover rate without ending up with a 100% turnover rate. And you make them learn how other parts of the government work. It wouldn't hurt a bit to see long-term members of Congress do a two-year stint in an administrative agency once in a while.

[aldonius]

Interesting idea and I do agree that contiguous is OK but total is not.

I think I'd suggest a more generous Senate term limit. Three terms (18 years) would allow for someone to see out a complete Presidential super-cycle, for example.

The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

[DrJokepu]

>The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but I’m going to challenge the notion that this etymological connection carries meaning. The word comes from Roman Senate, and in that context in Latin “senior” really meant people with higher status rather than age. Latin is full of these weird double meanings. Compare to seigneur in French or señor in Spanish. Also, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

[abustamam]

Yeah, many words are literally divorced from their etymological root. Literally ;)

[petejodo]

Or incumbents have to win some larger percentage of the vote in order to win over time

[mh-]

This is an interesting idea. Would be curious to hear from someone who thinks this is a bad idea (why).

edit: I see the "term limits are anti-democratic" takes elsewhere in the comments, so I guess let me narrow the above ask to "someone who isn't opposed to term limits, but thinks this idea is flawed."

[jfengel]

The Senate is wildly unpopular, but individual Senators get re-elected overwhelmingly. The problem is always other people's Senators.

Everyone would like to term limit other people's politicians but they like experience for their own. The length of terms can't resolve that one way or the other.

With the Supreme Court we tried eliminating terms altogether, in the hopes that it would give people a chance to bond away from the necessity of appealing to the public. That just pushed the problem back to getting the most ideologically committed judges on the bench... through the Senators.

I haven't heard any structural solution to the problem of Americans just not liking each other.

[SllX]

Bold of you to assume any aspect of the California State legislature is visible enough to be more or less popular. People at least pay attention to what the US Senate does, and you know that no matter how the next election goes, the US Senate as one body is unlikely to go very far off the deep end in one direction or the other.

[ajnin]

That's a non sequitur. Creating long-term professional politicians is not going to create legislators competent in the various domains they legislate on. It's going to create politicians competent at being elected long term, whatever the means.

[abustamam]

Yeah we need not look further than the 70 year old men in the United States senate/congress who have been in their seats for longer than I've been alive, making laws on technology they don't understand.

I don't know what the solution is for California, but I don't think it's that.

[ece]

The solution is to get money out out of politics. Term limits are good for the exact reason you mentioned. For tech law, there should be some sort of tech committee that knows laws like this are idiotic.

[ImJamal]

California has term limits (up to 12 years regardless of being in the assembly or senate) and this law still was passed so I don't think you are really selling term limits...

[ece]

Term limits do prevent situations like the supreme court, where any institutional knowledge and length of terms can be weaponized for political gain.

Overall, if the objective was to have a non-identifying age flag in operating systems, this isn't the end of the world (though I would have preferred enabling other things I've mentioned here in the past like opening up OSes). If there were younger people in the legislature that tried to understand this better than octogenarians, I think term limits are working fine.

Hopefully parents can use the parental control tools built around this non-identifying flag for some good.

[skissane]

It is interesting that this is a mainstream existing thing in the US (at the state level), but more of a fringe proposal in the rest of the English-speaking world.

I think the answer may be that the difference in political systems (parliamentary vs presidential) and party systems (less two-party but with greater party discipline) solves many of the problems term limits are intended to solve in completely different ways.

Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system? Although there is some debate about what the "republican form of government" clause means, it arguably doesn't rule out parliamentary republicanism, and Luther v Borden (1849) ruled the clause wasn't justiciable anyway. Added to that, the widespread practice in first half of the 19th century, in which governors were elected by state legislatures, was de facto the parliamentary system. I don't think there is any federal constitutional obstacle to trying this – it is just a political culture issue, it currently sits outside the state constitutional Overton window.

While you could adopt the Australia/Canada model of a figurehead state governor/lieutenant governor with a state premier, I think just having a premier but calling them "the governor" would be more feasible

[SllX]

> Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system?

Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think it would change outcomes as much as people would think, but to scope limit this back to California again because electoral law discussions just fucking spiral anytime there’s no geographic constraint, the root of California’s lawmaking problems is that the legislature is both poorly structured and poorly balanced against the direct democratic approach we have taken for so much of our lawmaking. I don’t think that’s inherent to the non-parliamentary system we have in place, but a result of incremental rule changes stemming from decades of ballot propositions that are supposed to solve a problem, but don’t and tend to have negative knock-on effects that fly under the radar.

Or put another way: the legislature is for legislating. It doesn’t need a competing power structure, and it doesn’t need to be balanced by anything other than a good functional Executive power and a good functional independent Judiciary. If you have that as your starting point, then maybe there’s room to discuss if there are any real advantages of a Parliamentary system instead.

[skissane]

A very widespread belief among political scientists is that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems in terms of stability and quality of governance. In fact, even the US State Department's own "nation-building" advisors tell other countries not to copy the US system (or at least they did prior to Trump, I'm honestly not sure if the Trump admin is sustaining that line or not)

Presidential systems have had a terrible run if you look at Latin America. The US seemed to be an exception to the rule, but maybe recent events have shown that the US got away with a substandard political system for so long because they had so many other advantages to make up for that, now their other advantages are weakening and the US is slowly converging with Latin America

[SllX]

I’m aware of the history, but my point is that as a specific reform to pursue, it’s noise.

If California moves to a Parliamentary system but maintains the popular ballot initiative that has undermined legislative power and allowed legislators to disclaim & dodge responsibility, or maintain the system of term limits I originally called out, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s our current bicameral legislature plus 5 Constitutional officers in the Executive branch or a full on Westminster Parliamentary system or anything in-between: you’ll still run into a lot of the same issues because there are no silver bullets.

So I’m not saying it should never be up for consideration, but as a list of changes to make go? It’s too far down the list of serious considerations for me to view it as anything other than noise right now.

[skissane]

I guess the reality is, all proposed solutions have low odds of success, and their relative probability ranking is debatable.

At least something like "adopt the Australia/Canada model" is easier for people to understand, because while a radical change, they can point to somewhere else that has been doing it successfully for decades. Incremental tinkering with the current rules can make unengaged people mentally switch off by comparison; radical changes can be easier to understand because they can be simpler to explain.

I think one problem with the Australia/Canada model, is even though constitutional monarchy isn't essential to it – both countries could arguably function just as well if they were federal parliamentary republics – many Americans mentally conflate the parliamentary and constitutional monarchy aspects. If eventually either or both countries became republics, that would probably make it easier to sell the idea to Americans.

Germany is a living example of a federal parliamentary republic – but the language barrier limits its accessibility as a model for Anglophone emulation.

One backdoor way it might happen – although no doubt quite unlikely – would be if Alberta seceded from Canada, got admitted as a US state, but kept something close to its current parliamentary system.

[interludead]

That's an interesting point, but I suspect the biggest barrier isn't constitutional, it's behavioral

[modeless]

Your solution to politicians being out of touch with reality is to let them remain in office longer?

[piloto_ciego]

The real solution is that nobody should have power.

[BuddyPickett]

No, everybody should have power.

[iwontberude]

You are saying the same thing, I’m cracking up over here.

[piloto_ciego]

nah, none of us. Power corrupts, pretty much any of it does - so basically we should only have power over ourselves is the only thing I can really think of.

[zdragnar]

And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

There, the professional legislators can't get anything right either.

Do you think there's a middle ground of increasing the term limits to, say, 18 or 20 years?

[pwthornton]

Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

A much more real issue is actually age limits. If someone starts in the Senate at 40 and serves for 24 years, term limits hardly seem to be the big issue. They are retiring at a normal time, and they should still be functioning at a high level.

Conversely, someone who gets elected at 70 and then gets term-limited at 82 is still over a normal, reasonable retirement age. The typical 82 is not in the physical or mental condition to be taking on such an important, high-stakes role.

Both of my parents are in their mid-70s and are in very good mental health for their age. They are very lucid, and my Dad still works part-time as a lawyer. They are also clearly not at the same intellectual powers they were a decade or two ago. Some of it can even just come down to energy levels. I have to imagine being a good legislator requires high energy levels.

Many public companies have age limits for board members, and they even have traditional retirement ages for CEOs. In the corporate world where results matter, there is a recognition that a high-stress, high-workload, high-cognitiative ability job is not something that someone should be doing well past their prime.

Al Gore had to leave the Apple board because he turned 75. In the U.S. Senate, there are 16 people 75 and older.

[duskdozer]

I don't really see why age limits would be exempt for "voters need to take responsibility for their voting".

IMO, the real issue is that voters are coerced to accept candidates put up by the parties due to FPTP. The threat of the wrong side winning gets people to accept someone they don't want. The primary process does not need to be democratic, and the results are pressured by the future threat of losing to the other side in a head-to-head.

[jessicest]

This is true: in general the best fix for US democratic systems is to learn from more functional systems from overseas.

US is running on beta version democracy; it was wonderful for a trial run and we learned a lot from it, but unfortunately the country has been stuck without upgrades for a while. It'd be like trying to connect a Xerox PARC desktop to the modern internet.

Obviously it's absurdly nontrivial to shift it at this point but I do agree that age and term limits both seem to be stopgap solutions due to the challenge of implementing more effective strategies.

Consider Australia: of 226 parliamentarians, there's one aged 75+: Bob Katter.

I'd say there's three features of the au system that keep us relatively free of the absurd incumbency advantages in USA:

1. Compulsory voting makes it harder to solicit votes from a subset of the populace.

2. The Australian Electoral Commission is highly trusted as a neutral body, so Gerrymandering is rare.

3. None of our voting systems use First Past The Post; it's all ranked choice, babes!

[Supermancho]

> Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

That is one aspect, but not the important one. The most important element is anti-corruption. Legal bodies can always entrench themselves and their own interests. Term limits significantly weakens entrenchment...excepting when the same legal bodies inevitably gut it.

[dddgghhbbfblk]

You're saying that term limits reduce corruption?

That's in fact not at all what the research says. There's a decent amount of research that suggests that they actually increase corruption. There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

This is a classic one of those ideas that many people intuitively "feel" makes sense but is actually just terrible policy.

[Supermancho]

> That's in fact not at all what the research says.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

There are a lot of factors beyond term limits that influence this kind of research. The most important detail is to remember that corruption spans more than external influence. Institutional ossification has benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks have outweighed the benefits, historically in the US and England. It was literally baked into the US Constitution to ensure this would not repeat for the US head of state. Notably the Supreme Court was baked in as a lifetime appointment. Granted, the remaining political bodies have not followed suit, I think it's clear that this has had a negative consequence due to the aforementioned entrenchment of the political parties.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

It is incorrect to claim that is the only effect. I also don't believe that the conclusion is correct. I do believe it's closer to your initial statement.

> it's just a way for [legislators] to not take responsibility for their voting.

ie It shows a lack of care in executing the responsibilities of the elected position, which is why they barely do anything but campaign at the federal level.

[thayne]

It seems logical to me that a term limit could increase vulnerability to corruption in your last term. If you can't be re-elected, there is less incentive to be loyal to the people you represent.

[rocqua]

Age limits might be an alternative. Say at 65 or 70.

That's at an age where wizened legislators can move into advisory roles, instead of needing to find a next career.

[SllX]

> And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

Plenty of shitty ideas are popular based on a hope and a prayer. That’s why you don’t give in to populism. If we’re to impose any kind of limits on Congress, it has to be more intelligent than term limits.

[jonhohle]

How about, if your taxable income exceeds some multiple of the median income of your district, you are no longer eligible to represent them. It’s pretty amazing how much a representative’s income grows once they take public service positions.

[mulmen]

This smells like funding schools based on student test results. Won't it disadvantage the most vulnerable areas? If I live in a state with some poor areas and some wealthy areas why would the most qualified people not compete to represent the wealthy areas?

If the problem is representatives using insider knowledge to enrich themselves then just hire more Inspectors General. If the problem isn't insider knowledge specifically then make whatever allows them to get rich illegal.

[SllX]

How about we stop screwing around and let becoming a legislator become an attractive & competitive job and just hold our noses at the little things that make politicians as a class generally unattractive people? Like not limitless, not with total impunity, but instead of trying to micromanage our way to perfection every fucking step of the way, we accept that politicians are going to politic.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You are going in the right direction.

I think its more :

if your taxable income during OR post-office exceeds (some 1,3,5 yr average) prior high watermark income, or the officeholder's salary (whichever is higher), every penny over high watermark is taxed at 99% tax rate.

That should take care of those pesky "speaking fees" and other nonsense that makes politicians rich.

[martin-t]

> professional legislatures

That should not be a profession.

Decisions should be made by people who are the most informed about the subject matter. By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

[SllX]

If someone can still keep getting people to vote for them, that’s not really an issue.

We elect the way we do and empower the way we do because it empowers voters to choose on a regular recurring basis who is going to provide oversight that way. When you start screwing around with the basis tenets of electoral democracy, you distort and pervert the value of an actual legislative seat and undermine the value of holding people directly responsible through elections.

Another good example is the ballot proposition system. Some things must go before voters—which is another separate wrong which would be righted—but apart from those, the ballot proposition also presents legislators an opportunity to outsource decision-making risk to voters where instead of having to take a chance of being wrong on a piece of legislation with a roll call vote, they can pass the risk off to State voters. If people voted on the issue directly, they’re not as empowered to hold the people who only put it on the ballot rather than making the decision as someone whose job is to make & pass legislation.

You want legislators to be empowered to serve their role in society so that they are also taking real risks every time they take a stand on an issue that risks pissing off their constituents.

[drdeca]

> By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

This is not true-by-definition . It may be true, but not by-definition. If there were an omniscient person, they would be the most informed about everything.

[mulmen]

I used to think like this but now I'm not so sure. Representatives should represent the electorate, not special interests. If someone invents a civilization destroying macguffin they are the most qualified person on that topic but we wouldn't want them to be in charge of regulating it.

[intrasight]

I agree. Limits are a feature not a bug. If they want a job for life, they should compete for civil service jobs.

[heavyset_go]

Perhaps our republic should be run by philosopher kings

[api]

Long term tenure won't help. Look at the Federal government. Eventually you end up with a hospice center as your legislature.

[9x39]

I’m more curious in the genesis of these laws, whether their sponsors received written suggestions or ghostwritten bills, etc. as a form of parallel construction.

It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

[carefulfungi]

I was curious about your question and googled. Here's the legislative history of the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm....

Reading the first analysis PDF:

> This bill, sponsored by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and Children Now, seeks to require device and operating systems manufacturers to develop an age assurance signal that will be sent to application developers informing them of the age-bracket of the user who is downloading their application or entering their website. Depending on the age range of the user, a parent or guardian will have to consent prior to the user being allowed access to the platform. The bill presents a potentially elegant solution to a vexing problem underpinning many efforts to protect children online. However, there are several details to be worked out on the bill to ensure technical feasibility and that it strikes the appropriate balance between parental control and the autonomy of children, particularly older teens. The bill is supported by several parents’ organizations, including Parents for School Options, Protect our Kids, and Parents Support for Online Learning. In addition, the TransLatin Coalition and The Source LGBT+ Center are in support. The bill is opposed by Oakland Privacy, TechNet, and Chamber of Progress.

[tzs]

This law doesn't do anything that prevents non-anonymous access. Here's how you would access things anonymously if you bought a new computer that implemented this.

1. When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate, make up any date you want that is at least far enough in the past to indicate an age older that what any site you might use that checks age requires.

2. Access things the way you've always done. All that has changed is that things that care about age checks find out you claim to be old enough.

The only people it actually materially affects on your new computer are people who cannot set up their own accounts, such as children if you have set up permissions so they have to get you to make their accounts.

Then if you want you can enter a birthdate that gives an age that says non-adult, so sites that check age will block them.

From a privacy and anonymity perspective this is essentially equivalent to sites that ask "Are you 18+?" and let you in if you click "yes" and block you if you click "no". It is just doing the asking locally and caching the result.

[heavyset_go]

As with all age verification bills, the fact that developers are opened up to liability if children access content they're not "supposed to" means that facial scans and ID checks will be implemented as they currently are everywhere.

From the bill:

> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

It's not enough to just accept the age signal, you can still be liable if you have reason to believe someone is underage based on other information.

The cheapest and easiest way to minimize that liability is with face scans and ID checks. That way you, as a developer, know that your users won't bankrupt you.

[quails8mydog]

Sounds like if the OS doesn't track anything else about the user, then it won't receive any other signals and will just use whatever was typed in at account creation.

If websites accept this as age verification it could provide a very easy way to bypass it.

In fact, looking at it again, point B specifically says if the "developer" has information rather than the "system" has information. So really sounds like if the developer isn't collecting logs that they can access themselves this wouldn't apply to them.

[tzs]

The cheapest and easiest way to minimize liability is not to collect any information not needed to actually provide the service you are providing.

[ohhnoodont]

I agree. I feel the flow of having browsers send some flag to sites is the most privacy-preserving approach to this whole topic. The system owner creates a “child” account that has the flag set by the OS and prevents the execution of unsanctioned software.

This puts the responsibility back on parents to do the bare minimum required in moderating their child’s activities.

[fc417fc802]

What would be even more privacy preserving would be to mandate sites to send age appropriateness headers (mainstream porn sites already do this voluntarily).

Possibly it could be further mandated that the OS collect relevant rating information for each account and provide APIs with which browsers and other software could implement filtering.

And possibly it could be further mandated that web browsers adopt support for this filtering standard.

And if you want a really crazy idea you could pass a law mandating that parents configure parental controls on devices of children under (say) 12 and attach civil penalties for repeated failure to do so.

There's never any need for information about the user to be sent off to third parties, nor should we adopt schemes that will inevitably provide ammo for those advocating attested digital platforms.

[bryan_w]

I think you would find widespread support from the various websites out there for this. Most porn websites today voluntarily implement some type of mechanism that advertises them as not for children.

[packetlost]

The issue is how does the browser know the age bracket of the user in question so it knows to not load content with those headers? The API this bill mandates is the missing half to make those headers actually useful without specialized browsers/3rd party plugins.

[hirsin]

So does Google send a header for each search result when you look up "Ron Jeremy" so that some results get hidden, or does the browser just block the whole page?

Sending all the "bad" data to the client and hoping the client does the right thing outs a lot of complexity on the client. A lot easier to know things are working if the bad data doesn't ever get sent to the client - it can't display what it didn't get.

[fc417fc802]

Google would send a header that it is appropriate for all ages (I'm not sure how the safe search toggle would interact with this, the idea is just a rough sketch after all).

When you click on a search result, you load a new page on a different website. The new page would once again come with a header indicating the content rating. This header would be attached to all pages by law. It would be sent every time you load any page.

Assuming that the actual problem here is the difficulty of implementing reliable content filtering (ala parental controls) then the minimally invasive solution is to institute an open standard that enables any piece of software to easily implement the desired functionality. You can then further pass legislation requiring (for example) that certain classes of website (ex social media) include an indication of this as part of the header.

Concretely, an example header might look like "X-Content-Filter: 13,social-media". If it were legally mandated that all websites send such it would become trivially easy to implement filtering on device since you could simply block any site that failed to send it.

> A lot easier to know things are working if ...

Which is followed by wanting an attested OS (to make sure the value is reliably reported), followed by a process for a third party to verify a government issued ID (since the user might have lied), followed by ...

It's entirely the wrong mentality. It isn't necessary for solving the actual problem, it mandates the leaking of personal data, and it opens an entire can of worms regarding verification of reported fact.

[trinsic2]

Yes this is a really simple fix. The first line if your post says it all. If they really wanted to protect children, you would put the responsibility on the services on the other end. This is about mass surveillance or disadvantaging open source solutions

[EmbarrassedHelp]

If browsers are going to send flags, they should only send a flag if its a minor. Otherwise is another point of tracking data that can be used for fingerprinting.

[gsnedders]

If you send a flag ever, then absence of a flag is also fingerprinting surface.

If you imagine a world where you have a header, Accepts-Adult-Content, which takes a boolean value: you essentially have three possibilities: ?0, ?1, and absent.

How useful of a tracking signal those three options provide depends on what else is being sent —

For example, if someone is stuffing a huge amount of fingerprinting data into the User-Agent string, then this header probably doesn’t actually change anything of the posture.

As another example, if you’re in a regular browser with much of the UA string frozen, and ignoring all other headers for now, then it depends on how likely the users with that UA string to have each option: if all users of that browser always send ?0 (if they indicate themselves to be a minor) or ?1 (if they indicate themselves to be an adult or decline to indicate anything), then a request with that UA and it absent is significantly more noteworthy — because the browser wouldn’t send it — and more likely to be meaningful fingerprinting surface.

That said, adding any of this as passive fingerprinting surface seems like an idea unlikely to be worthwhile.

If you want even a weak signal, it would be much better to require user interaction for it.

[decidu0us9034]

I'm not sure it's worth entertaining these hypotheticals. Just another absurd CA law that's impossible to comply with. "When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate." What does this mean? "Setup" what account? "It" what? Some graphical installer? What if I don't want to use one? How would this protocol be implemented in such a way where it's not trivially easy for the user to alter the "age signal" before sending a request? The "signal" is signed with some secret that you attest to but can't write? So it's in some enclave? What if my smart toaster doesn't have an enclave? Does my toaster now have to implement software enclave? I'm not aware of a standard, or industry standards body, or standard specification, or implementation of a specification, around this "age signal" thing. Is this some proprietary technology that some company has a patent on, and they've been lobbying for their patent to be legally mandated? If so that's very concerning and probably has antitrust implications (it is ironic that ever-tightening surveillance of people is a downstream consequence of all this deregulation of corporate persons; fine for me but not for thee I guess). I would love to know the full story here, since this is being shopped around in several states, but I haven't seen any sort of investigative journalism about this which is disappointing. This whole thing is really curious.

[vineyardmike]

Most of these questions are actually answered in the law itself. You could be your own investigator in seconds.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Your toaster is not impacted. You’re turning a law that, yes, has some open questions around implementation, into a way bigger scare and conspiracy.

> operating system provider, as defined, to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

Let’s be honest here. 99% of general purpose computing devices targeted at consumers make an “account” when you setup for the first time. Even Linux if just to name a home directory. It’s pretty obvious what an account is. Especially when it only applies to bundled app stores. What App Store has no account anyways?

It allows the operating system to define the interface. No patent or proprietary system. No surveillance. The law says user interface. Not graphical interface. Do with that as you will. A OS producer who has an App Store probably has a graphical interface, but if not they surely figured out how to interface with users already.

It actually requires operating systems and developers to not abuse this data or use it for anticompetitive purposes.

There is no attestation. It’s entirely self reported and unverified.

[TylerE]

You should follow your own advice.

Their definition of "app store" is a mile wide: "(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application."

Grats, github is an appstore. apt-get is an app store. You posting software on your own website is an app store.

[vineyardmike]

GitHub isn’t an app stores associated with an operating system though. Your personal website is most likely not in scope. You have to put all the pieces together.

Apt… yes is an App Store run by an operating system organization (Debian org). That feels pretty unsurprising. Debian’s parent organization (headquartered in the US) probably needs to comply with this.

[bikelang]

> It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

I think you’ve nailed it here. How many of these people campaigned on this issue? Where were the grassroots to push this? Where did this even come from?

Somebody, somewhere - with a heck of a lot of money - wants to see this happen. And I don’t think they have good intentions with it.

[elfly]

Conservatives discovered a cheat code to get: (a) people to have to identify on the computer everywhere and (b) control what they can do with and without this identification.

Of course they are copying the play everywhere.

[almosthere]

Death threats mainly. Personally I think it would be easier if they just made it so that platforms ran a tiny LLM against the content that will be posted - determined if it is a death threat, then require them to be identified before it's posted, then it would solve a lot of these problems.

TLDR: Evil people be doxxed internally not everyone.

[numpad0]

That turns jokes into contracts that nobody wants. Bad idea.

[Filligree]

Maybe just don’t make “jokes” like that.

[numpad0]

I don't make such "jokes". Idiots do.

And when the idiots do, the proposed system locks the fire door for them. That's just dangerous. We'd want them with bunch of confusing options and better illuminated de-escalation paths.

[bigfishrunning]

a "tiny large language model"? lol

[reverius42]

See https://tinyllm.org

These days the name "LLM" refers more to the architecture & usage patterns than it does to the size of model (though to be fair, even the "tiny" LLMs are huge compared to any models from 10+ years ago, so it's all relative).

[almosthere]

Yeah, a small one that is cheaper because they'll be processing billions of messages per year.

[lazide]

Good thing all the kind people doing death threats won’t just bypass it?

[almosthere]

I'm totally lost here. If you don't identify, you don't post.

[AceJohnny2]

> There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California

You can remove the in California

[shitlord]

Policies enacted elsewhere usually don't have the Brussels Effect.

[RobotToaster]

What about in Brussels?

[saati]

I assume you mean EU directives and not Belgian law, and the thing is it's incredibly hard to pass an EU directive, it needs to originate in the Commission, then pass qualified majority in the Council then pass a vote in the Parliament. Nothing without a broad consensus can get anywhere near.

[ActorNightly]

The California part is partially to highlight the fact that its a very liberal state and this is the kind of laws that liberals pass, but people fail to realize that all of these laws come from Republican lawmakers, as there are plenty of right wing people in California.

[almosthere]

Young people generalize everything and end up not solving problems.

Older people have already seen all the patterns, and realize you have to focus on specifics, and that helps clean up the general issue.

[roenxi]

The old people's tolerance for general problems is why the general problems persist.

A realistic dynamic is the old people are comfortable with the general problems and have positioned themselves to benefit from them. Indeed, they solved the general problems that troubled them in their youth with political activism in their middle age. The young people have different political needs that require general problems to be solved.

Also young people have a terrible track record of actually identifying problems, they are pretty clueless in the main.

[WalterBright]

> The old people's tolerance for general problems is why the general problems persist.

Or they just realize that the general problems are insoluble.

[_blackhawk_]

this

[SllX]

Yeah but let’s not and say we didn’t.

[avtar]

I guess let’s say we also add Colorado to the growing list

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

[SunshineTheCat]

> they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about

While you are correct with this statement in this context, I would say it applies to most things in government in general.

The vast majority of lawmakers have zero experience solving any real world problems and are content spending everyone else's money to play pretend at doing so.

The reality is, most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve, after which, they blame their predecessors for all the problems they caused and the cycle continues.

[wredcoll]

> The reality is, most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve

The "reality" is that propaganda heavily encourages you to ignore the government successes and only focus on the failures. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine who benefits from that.

[SunshineTheCat]

> "government successes"

Please, name for me one product or service that the US government has created, that people willingly buy, that has made your life tangibly better.

I can list a billion made by businesses.

Please, go for it. Just one.

[mbgerring]

USPS

Medicaid

The National Park System

I know that the next step is you explaining why these don’t count, or saying “wow only 3” or whatever, but

[palmotea]

> I know that the next step is you explaining why these don’t count, or saying “wow only 3” or whatever, but

Oh, there's more: Medicare, Social Security, the highway system.

The whole food/medicine regulatory system is also a big one, and it's the reason a lot of US (and European) products like baby formula are imported into China, because they can be more trusted.

My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language. The flawed assumption there is the government should be conceptualized as just another company selling in the market, when the government's actual role is very different.

[SunshineTheCat]

As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company.

Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

[Dylan16807]

This discussion about the purpose of government is valid as a way to disagree with the "willingly buy" language, but it's still true that most of those examples don't answer the question and to refuse them is not "weaseling out".

[WalterBright]

> My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language

Well, they aren't willingly buying it. They are funded with taxes.

[WalterBright]

USPS - is self-funded, though it is operating at a loss. It also is a legal monopoly, meaning competitors for first class mail are illegal.

Medicaid - funded by the government, meaning people are not willingly paying for it

The National Park System - funded by the government, meaning people are not willingly paying for it

[NetMageSCW]

The USPS is failing because people aren’t that interested in it.

Medicaid is hardly a competitive market, but medication pricing alone says it is a failure. On Medicaid, my FIL can’t get his prescription for G7s filled by anyone.

[SunshineTheCat]

Every single thing you just mentioned is insolvent.

[wredcoll]

Like, even if that was true, which super blatantly they are not, they are not intended to make a profit, they are intended to accomplish a goal.

[hash872]

The proto-Internet. GPS. Nuclear energy. MRIs. Fracking. The Human Genome Project. Fiber optics. Optical data storage. Jet engines. Heck, the entire space industry. Lithium ion batteries. Radar. Night vision technology. Modern lower limb prosthetics. Just off the top of my head

[WalterBright]

Jet engines - Frank Whipple (England) and Franz Ohain (Germany) invented them. In both cases the governments were not interested in them until flying jet aircraft were demonstrated. Lockheed was ordered by the government to abandon their jet engine project and focus on piston engines instead (which resulted in the US having to get started on jet aircraft by buying British machines).

Human genome - J. Venter was the first to sequence the human genome, privately funded.

the entire space industry - Liquid fuel rockets were pioneered by Goddard, through private funding.

Radar - originated from late 19th-century experiments on radio wave reflection, pioneered by Heinrich Hertz in 1886. While Christian Hülsmeyer patented a "telemobiloscope" for ship detection in 1904

The proto-Internet - Pioneered by Samuel Morse, see "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage. Privately funded.

Optical data storage - Invented by D Gregg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paul_Gregg, at a private company.

Nuclear energy - a very long list of contributors. See "The Making of the Atomic Bomb".

And so on.

[dboreham]

Whittle (Whipple is a painter) "invented" the jet engine while serving in the RAF, so technically not privately funded at the point of invention. There was private funding used later to create prototype engines.

Quite a stretch to say the Atomic Bomb was privately funded!!!

[elfly]

No company ever got a man to the Moon.

Sure, some companies participated in the process. But it was a government that did it.

It's been more than 50 years and private companies haven't been able to match it.

The greatest technical achievement of mankind was done by a government. Private industry could, at best, help.

Sorry all the other things you name are great. But the winner is government.

[wredcoll]

You had me until fracking.

[hash872]

The Department of Energy funded much of the early research into fracking in the 70s

https://www.energy.gov/hgeo/articles/does-early-investment-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States https://clearpath.org/tech-101/hydraulic-fracturing-a-public...

[hellojesus]

Didn't gov funded science invent MRIs?

[ericb]

I see Massachusetts as sort of the non-insane liberal counterpoint to California.

Things work here and nobody seems to be passing the "oops my unintended side effects and clueless regulations messed things up horribly." Or, if they do, it is at something like 1/10th the level.

We didn't start warning label spam everywhere. We don't have weird propositions that are causing run-away housing prices. There aren't bar codes on our 3d printers, or cookie banner requirements on every website. Well, ok we do, but that nonsense all came in from other places.

We did pass laws to lower PFAS/PFOAS. That seems reasonable. Government can work.

[cucumber3732842]

MA legislature is too busy enriching themselves with back room dealing to f the state up too much.

I wish I was joking. They get audited yet? Pretty sure that was a ballot measure that passed by a huge margin years back and last I checked they were stalling...

[wredcoll]

> We don't have weird propositions that causing run-away housing prices.

Most of those are a reaction rather than the cause. People want to move to california, it creates a different set of problems for california vs Massachusetts

[dlev_pika]

I like MA, but you realize the challenges are vastly different, right?

The sheer size, economic volume and cultural diversity of CA presents a pretty unique set of issues.

[ericb]

I mean, sure, but all those things I named don't seem to be scale induced? They seem to all stem from clueless regulation, which is as simple as not not signing silly laws? I'm missing where scale plays into the items I mentioned.

[alistairSH]

most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve

Zero basis in fact. We’re in the wealthiest nation on the planet. Most of us live better than any previous generation. To claim all that success is completely in spite of government is ridiculous.

[SunshineTheCat]

Are you under the impression that the government created all that wealth?

[Yossarrian22]

Without nukes to keep away the Soviets I wouldn’t be wealthy

[nozzlegear]

This but unironically

[Yossarrian22]

To be clear I meant this literally, I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.

[alistairSH]

Not at all. But it enabled it. Or at worst didn’t prevent it.

[elfly]

Have you ever looked at a dollar bill in your life.

Who do you think printed it. Who signed the bill?

The US can just print money and receive goods in exchange of literal paper. Or just put an extra zero in a bank account and receive goods in exchange.

And if a certain yahoo decides they want in the money printing scheme...who do you think is going to send the goons with guns to prevent the government monopoly in creating literal wealth.

[heavyset_go]

The government literally enforces capitalism with guns and bombs lol

[rurban]

Wealthiest nation? More like unwealthiest of all nations.

U. S. by far the largest current-account deficit (over $1.2 trillion).

U.S. has the largest goods trade deficit (over $1 trillion).

[Hammershaft]

It's true, and yet there are real market failures that even a very ineffective government can improve on dramatically, like innovation & research output via basic science.

[palmotea]

> - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode switch bug cannot be patched...)

I don't know much about guns, but I assume that would be on the hammer? Couldn't you remove that "microstamping" by lightly filing down the hammer or just using it a bunch and causing some wear?

[marssaxman]

For most modern guns, it would be the firing pin, also called the "striker". Nobody manufactures microstamped guns, but if they did, the striker is a $20 part you can replace in ten minutes - or you could just spend half an hour on target practice at your local range, because 200 rounds are apparently enough to wear the etching down to illegibility.

[jrnichols]

They know this, and they know the technology just isn't there. But that's their goal - to make gun ownership as difficult and expensive as possible.

I think they've learned from the anti-gun lobbyists and are now pushing to end anonymity on the internet the same way.

[iamnothere]

This is exactly it, it’s death by a thousand stupid cuts by throwing everything at the wall and hoping that something sticks. They know that many of these laws won’t pass constitutional scrutiny, but by the time they make their way to the Supreme Court, the damage will be done and 10 new stupid laws will take their place. The anti gun lobby has been doing the exact same thing for years.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

How long until we have to scan our assholes to use the coffee machine?

[genxy]

Do you have a term sheet?

[4k93n2]

we might as well just do a coffee enema at that point

[rib3ye]

It's not a coincidence the equally clueless citizens are asking for these laws. Like in business, sometimes it's better to do "some thing" when you're not smart enough to do the right thing. Maybe you get there, maybe you don't, but inaction is not looked upon kindly.

[pennomi]

What citizens are asking for age verification? I have met exactly ZERO people who want this. It’s only the authorities who want it.

[NetMageSCW]

Do these groups count as the authorities?

Children Now (co-sponsor). International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (co-sponsor). AAPI Equity Alliance. California Parents for Public Virtual Education. Parents Support for Online Learning. Protect Our Kids.

[shevy-java]

I've not met anyone privately who would be in support of this.

There is a layer of indirection at work here. Fake-democracy.

[michaelbrave]

I'm still in the process of having to write letters to lawmakers about the stupid 3D printer law, now I'm going to have to write letters for this stupid thing too. Like how hard is it to take a day to have a conversation with someone that just knows a little bit about these things, a hobbyist even. The minimal amount of question asking, hell they could even ask an LLM and it would still give a better answer.

[WaitWaitWha]

i did not even think of that! As the current law reads, will smart devices with OSes require age verification? Many IoTs are just tiny Linux versions running on a small processor. This makes all smart GE washing machines, dryers and refrigerators illegal in California.

come to think of it, maybe there is something good about this law. :D

[RobotToaster]

Not just that, but the the copy of Minix in the intel IME of every intel processor.

Not to mention all the printers, routers, etc that run freertos/thread x/vxworks.

[burnt-resistor]

Not just 3D printers but all subtractive CNC machines too.

[lazide]

Frankly, look at how hard it was to make a sten. Even just a lathe and a welder is likely sufficient.

[dataflow]

> Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

What part of the bill makes you think this would apply to a microwave? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

And what part makes you think you need to verify your age, as opposed to just specifying it? Nobody is requiring any verification. The only requirement is on there being an interface for you to input whatever age you want to input.

[rustystump]

There is a name for it, feel good policies and cali is not unique.

People who dont understand the problem must pass a solution that makes people feel good. Clean needles, homeless hotels, etc. If they dont make things worse, that is a win.

[dongguanxianhao]

The printer spyware has an interesting backstory.

A Spanish venture-backed firm is developing some vaporware called Print&Go and has convinced the NY DA's office that it'll permanently solve the Luigi problem.

The best part? This company is drooling at the possibility of getting a permanent rent-seeking license for printers they didn't design, for nonexistent vaporware software that reduces its capabilities.

They frame it as "enhancing 3D printer capabilities," the way a slaveowner would frame putting chains on a slave's wrists as an "employee retention innovation."

Is everyone involved with promoting this software and these laws lying? Of course.

https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-p...

[hintymad]

So essentially California is becoming more and more like EU? It's curious to see how it pans out. Maybe EU's model turns out to be better than a more laissez-faire world like the US. Who knows.

What's even more curious is that the California voters seem not care at all. As long as the government can collect more taxes with more altruistic slogans, the voters will stay happy.

[shevy-java]

Which EU law mandates age verification on my personal computer at home exactly?

[Aerroon]

I'm starting to get more and more behind the idea that maybe lawmakers need to be legally accountable for bad laws that they make.

[Bender]

Modern technology is simply not compatible with clueless politicians

He may be our next president and this becomes an executive order.

[wtallis]

> Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

Anyone buying or selling a microwave with an app store deserves this mess.

[mikestew]

Downvoter (and GP) didn't RTFA. This is addressed in the parts of the law TFA quotes.

[interludead]

The irony is that the only entities capable of complying are the large centralized platforms

[harrall]

No it’s a mindset thing.

Some people think all problems should be fixed with regulation.

Some people think all problems should be fixed with free market / responsibility.

California and liberals tend to lean to the former. A place like Texas and conservatives tend to lean to the latter.

I think both camps are crazy because it’s a case-by-case basis where you need to consider second and third order effects. But man talk to a die hard regulation supporter or die hard free market supporter and you just want to say “the world isn’t just simple rules like that.”

[randomNumber7]

Technology is currently worring for a lot of people so the moronic response is to simply reject it.

[michaelteter]

You can single out California, but I assure you there are asinine laws on the books in most states.

What it takes to become a “successful” politician is typically not what it takes to define good policy.

[pklausler]

Democracy rewards mass appeal, and that in turn encourages demagoguery and gives a platform for stupidity. It's been an unavoidable problem with the system since Athens.

[idle_zealot]

What I'm reading of this law is that it requires OS developers to require users select their age (really their age bracket) when making a user account, and an interface for applications/websites to read that user-provided field. I.e. not age verification, but just a standard way to identify if a user is on a child account. If that understanding is correct, how is this bad at all? It's a way to put to rest people's concerns and pearl-clutching over children accessing adult content without every individual app and service provider contracting with Palantir to scan you and guess your age. Instead they can just read the IsAdult header and call it a day. What's the cost to user-freedom? You have to be presented a Date of Birth field or I Am an Adult / Teen / Child selector when setting up a device... a thing that every operating system impacted by this law already does.

[hilsdev]

Why should it be law? I am a developer in California, and a long time Linux nerd. If I were to release a hobby on my GitHub for fun, without age verification, am I now subject to fines? Imprisonment? Why should their be a legal requirement?

[idle_zealot]

As with any law like this, it should apply to systems made for normal end-users with over some minimum number of users. If your hobby Linux distro picks up a million home users then yeah, you're responsible for making it suitable for purpose for as long as you're distributing it. It's the same with accessibility requirements, safety requirements, labor laws, etc.

If California starts knocking on the door of random distros and hobby OSes designed for power users or servers with 2000 average monthly downloads then I'll go to bat defending them.

Though to re-iterate, I'm pretty sure the requirements here are for asking a user to set an age, not to do age verification, so if you did want to comply it would mean adding a Date field to your setup flow and then wiring that up to applications that ask for it.

[heavyset_go]

It's not enough to just accept the age signal:

> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

Developers are still liable if they have reason to believe someone is underage, even if the age signal says otherwise.

The only way to truly minimize that liability is forcing users to scan their faces and IDs, that is why age verification systems are already implemented that way.

[idle_zealot]

Thanks for actually reading the law for me! Yeah, that's pretty bad. I'm totally on board for requiring a common interface for platforms to indicate and check for self-reported age, but legally requiring operating systems to doubt and override user settings is unambiguously anti-user and authoritarian.

[akdev1l]

I think it’s meant for the case where a child is using an adult’s user account but maybe their own account within that

eg: you let your child use your laptop for a bit to play Roblox. The child logs into the Roblox account which has their real age. As per the law Roblox is required to use their inner age signal instead of the OS provided one.

I suppose it could also go the opposite way: if your steam account is 18 years old by itself then probably we can treat you like a grown up and ignore the OS provided signal.

I guess the latter form would be quite rare for anyone to implement.

[MangoCoffee]

How is this good at all for a free society? You are basically making a "what about the children?" argument. its the parent job to protect their children. why should anyone suffer this b.s.?

[filleduchaos]

How is it bad for a free society?

[juris]

not to be flippant, i am answering your question with the seriousness it deserves:

it is because any government regulation over user identifiers in an operating system (and left to grow and fester according to political wont) will chill free speech (code, data) and assembly (the ability to share code and data with others unsupervised).

[filleduchaos]

That's nice but doesn't actually answer the question that I asked, which is how this (i.e. requiring local user accounts to specify an age range on creation) is bad for a free society.

Simply stating something you apparently see as self-evidently true in the abstract doesn't really make much of a point. Especially when said something is unironically just "but the slippery slope!"

[juris]

since you’re lost (now I’m being flippant to match your tone):

age is an identifier as part of a ‘digital fingerprint’. a fingerprint is used to track you. your fingerprints are attached to the things you criticize online. you must temper your criticisms. end of story.

your ‘o noes another slippery slope arg’ falls flat on its ass when you look outside at what your government is patently and evidently doing. you paying any attention to the anthropic ‘mass surveillance’ canary? how about the ice app? threats to legally prosecute protesters of ice? no? god, you really need to be led to water huh.

maybe look up how the persona company aggregates data for the government and get back to me as to whether you think that has a chilling effect on speech and assembly (when droves of people are leaving discord)

ah maybe too “abstract” for you. How about this:

a/s/l? :3 don’t worry, im just a dev, i won’t bite. unless of course, you disagree with me o3o

[bawolff]

All the better to do targeted advertisments and underdeveloped minds!

[idle_zealot]

This is exactly the sort of infrastructure that would make it super easy to pass a law banning tracking and advertising to minors. Once every platform can trivially detect when they should turn off the ads there's no reasonable counter-argument about privacy or feasibility.

[bawolff]

Have we banned advertising tk minors on tv shows aimed at minirs? Are barbie/action hero/etc commercial showing kids having fun with barbies on channels whose primary demo is children no longer a thing?

Technology has never been tge limiting factor. Politicak will is.

[sigio]

Fine by me... instantly setting my age to whatever it is that disallows all ads ;)

[amelius]

At least they did not invent cookie banners.

[Joker_vD]

Yeah, the commercial firms invented them all on their own just to keep tracking customers and oversharing whatever data they gather with random third parties while still getting to complain about stupid laws that require them to do so [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521179

[nozzlegear]

The EU's own government agencies use cookie banners on their websites.

[eleventyseven]

Headline is wrong, and you didn't read the article. There is no verification requirement. You are a bad HN poster and should feel bad.

All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms.

> There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place."

There's an obvious theme with HN posters about politics—they make cheap drive-by comments about regulations they have zero clue about, based on articles they haven't actually read, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've shown why I'm smarter than all these politics people."

[gatlin]

> All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot.

This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie.

Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being negative and bringing down the quality of discussion."

[wredcoll]

Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification.

The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

[mistercheph]

Ah we should be happy about a bad law because it's enforcement mechanism is weak? That's twice-bad: undermines the strength and meaning of Law, and aligns Law with the bad.

When the law and it's execution are undermined and weak, it becomes the cudgel of fickle changing power, i.e. it is applied selectively and it means nothing to people except when they are being beat in the head with it, at which point they only regret having been caught, successfully undermining the social and political fabric of a nation.

Having a bad law with a weak enforcement mechanism isn't quite the thing to be boasting about you seem to think it is.

[gatlin]

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

[wtallis]

You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information. Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".

[gatlin]

Nope, just the normal one. It asks for your age and gates further interactions based on the answer, no? That's verification.

[wredcoll]

The bill attempts to move age related signals from sending a scan of your passport to facebook to your own operating system attesting something.

[calf]

Why do I keep proposing things but they fail to exist and I can't ignore my failures?

[gatlin]

That sounds like a question for a psychologist or clergy member.

[eleventyseven]

Hey gatlin, are you going to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of the word "verification"?

Just delete your account.

[gatlin]

You seem to be under the impression that you have authority over me. Fascinating.

[eleventyseven]

Gatlin, you need to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of "verification". This is truly embarrassing for you. It really brings down the quality of the discussion.

[gatlin]

I don't need to do anything. You however should stop condescending and issuing commands to other people.

[Joker_vD]

> Microstamping requirements for guns

Eh, sounds kinda reasonable. Ammo already has unique serial numbers embedded in the butt of every cartridge (in some countries, not sure about the US), and guns do leave somewhat unique marks on the bullets upon firing so... sure, why not. Surprised it took that long TBF, the necessary technology has been commercially available since the early 90s, I think?

> 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

Yeah, this one's seems unnecessary. Is weapon manufacturing without a license a crime? If yes, then whoever 3D-prints a gun can be prosecuted normally.

> Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

Or on your gas stove. A travesty, really: I was taught how to operate a stove when I was in the second grade and never burned any houses down, thank you very much.

[LooseMarmoset]

The micro stamping law is in no way reasonable because removing the micro stamping from the end of a firing pin is laughably trivial. The only people who won’t do this are people who weren’t going to break the law in the first place.

Even people who didn’t want to break the law might find themselves on the receiving end of law-enforcement if the firing pin wears such that the micro stamping is no longer identifiable.

The micro stamping law does nothing to prevent the flow of guns to people who should not have them, and does everything to prevent the use or purchase of guns by people who can lawfully own them - which is the whole point of a law like this. The people who make these laws are well aware of this.

The age verification law, coupled with the proposed hardware attestation that our good friend Lennart poettering is working on will ensure that anonymity on the Internet is gone. This is precisely what lawmakers are aiming for. And just like the micro stamping law, the intent of the law is not the literal word of the law.

[dataflow]

> The micro stamping law is in no way reasonable because removing the micro stamping from the end of a firing pin is laughably trivial. The only people who won’t do this are people who weren’t going to break the law in the first place.

I'm curious, so if (when?) California ends up successfully hunting down some criminals with this, what is your new position going to be? They were going to get caught anyway, or something like that?

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

It'll never happen. As op said, it's laughably trivial to remove, and thus criminals will remove it.

Legitimate gun users will, at best, use their weapon in self defense, in which case they'll be sitting there waiting when the police arrive, so no need for microstamping.

The "crime of passion" so popular in TV shows are few and far between, and there's usually a huge amount of other evidence.

[knorker]

I think you're overestimating the intelligence of most criminals. And their gun logistics discipline.

If it were possible to do, it'd help.

Also, removing the marking mechanism would be a process crime. Process crimes are very useful for catching criminals.

Are you against serial numbers on guns too? You can always file those down.

[johnea]

I'm, again, glad to run linux. The distro I run has no affiliated online "account" at all, and I would expect this exempts it from the requirement.

I'm no democrat, although I'm sure as hell no republican, and as a resident of the state, I'm also a routine critic of the California state government.

I agree that a lot of their activities are indeed, performance art in nature.

However I do agree with the identification requirements on guns and ammo.

You can't shoot someone with a computer, no matter what OS you run.

The idea that lethal weaponry is the same as any other consumer product is just not accurate.

[anonym29]

It's about as easy to restrict the proliferation of firearms and ammunition as it is to restrict the proliferation of open source software. Anyone can make functional firearms out of supplies from any hardware store, this is true regardless of how many laws you pass. Look at the weapon that was used to assassinate Shinzo Abe. That was manufactured and used in a country with gun control laws that basically make California's gun control look indistinguishable from Texas. No number of laws have ever or will ever stop criminals with a rudimentary grasp of basic physics and basic chemistry.

You can't put the genie of firearms back in the bottle any more than Hollywood can put the genie of p2p file sharing back in the bottle. Trying to do so is like trying to unscramble eggs. It doesn't matter how valid your desires or justifications for attempting to so are, it's an act of banging your own head against the cold, hard wall of reality.

[collingreen]

It's a logical mistake to say that because an extremely motivated person can still cause harm somehow that implies no regulation or policy can have any positive impact anywhere.

I don't have a stance here on what "the right" policies around gun control are but it is clearly a much wider field than just a preplanned assassination with diy parts.

A non-exhaustive list of a few very different scenarios that are all involved with anything touching or rejecting gun control:

- highly motivated, DIY-in-the-basement assassination plots like you mentioned - hunting for food - hunting for fun - wilderness safety - organized crime and gang related violence - mass shootings at things like concerts, sporting events, colleges. Sub point of mass shootings at schools where the law requires children to be. - gun violence involved with suddenly escalating impromptu violence like road rage and street/bar fights - systematic intimidation / domestic terrorism of particular groups or areas - gun related suicides

All of these are very very different. None of them have perfect answers but that doesn't make thinking about it "an act of banging your own head against the cold, hard wall of reality" nor does it make anyone interested in working on some of these problems naive or stupid like you imply.

If you're being earnest or maybe jaded, I'd say dont give up hope and don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

If you're just being a dick then so be it, maybe someone else gets something out of this comment.

[tzs]

> It's a logical mistake to say that because an extremely motivated person can still cause harm somehow that implies no regulation or policy can have any positive impact anywhere

That kind of mistake is common here, but I don't think it is due to a failure of logic. I think it is something deeper.

I've noticed that people who have worked deeply and/or a long time as developers tend to lose the ability to see things as a continuum. They see them as quantized, often as binary.

That's also why there are so many slippery slope arguments made around here that go from even the most mild initial step almost immediately to a dystopian hellscape.

This is prevalent enough that it arguably should be considered an occupational hazard for developers and the resultant damage to non-binary thinking ability considered to be a work related mental disability with treatment for it covered by workers compensation.

A way to protect against developing this condition is to early in your career seriously study something where you have to do a lot of non-binary thinking and there are often aren't any fully right answers.

A good start would be make part of the degree requirement for a bachelor's degree in computer science (and maybe any hard science or engineering) in common law countries a semester of contract law and a semester of torts. Teach these exactly like those same courses are taught in first year law school. Both contracts and torts are full of things that require flexible, non-binary, thinking.

[jeffbee]

This doesn't have anything to do with democrats and republicans, considering that this bill passed unanimously through every committee and both chambers.

[SoftTalker]

Political office in general attracts the sort of people who like the "performance art" parts of it. It doesn't attract the sorts of people who like "getting things done" because the political process by design moves at a snail's pace, and if you actually solved problems you would remove issues run on in the next campaign.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> You can't shoot someone with a computer, no matter what OS you run.

No, you can just target-lock them. The computer database (and now, LLM) is probably the biggest threat to freedom in existence. You can keep your popgun. They'll know where it is, and come with bigger ones.

China be doing some pretty heavy-duty damage with computers, but age-gates won't stop them.

[mmooss]

I think they demonstrate a welcome and sophisticated understanding of technology. Their solution to age verification maximizes privacy by not sending any data off the computer besides a simple signal of age category (if I understand the design). They show more sophistication than the parent commment:

> 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

Color scanners and printers have long had algorithms to recognize currency and prevent its reproduction, implemented with the technology of decades ago. It seems relatively simple to implement gun part recognition today, especially with the recent leap in image recognition capability.

(Rants and takedowns, IME, may entertain fellow believers, but signal a comment that's going to go well beyond any facts.)

[xomiachuna]

3d shape classification is different from matching a set of well-known, mostly fixed patterns (like eurion constellation) necessary to detect currency.

With 3d shapes of non-governmental origin this is at best difficult and at worst intractable. Consider the fact that many parts of a gun can be split into multiple printable pieces to be later assembled, making it very nontrivial to decipher the role of the shape.

With currency, the government has the controls for the supply of the target shape (it can encode hidden signals onto banknotes) and effectively controls the relroduction side (through the pressure on printer manufacturers). But it cannot control the supply of gun-part-shapes (it is not the only source for it), and since the problem is likely intractable - neither can it enforce the control on the 3d printing side.

Paper money being almost non-fungible is a great achievement, but is it as easy to make any mesh nonfungible as well?

[mmooss]

It's certainly harder, I agree. We have highly sophisticated, non-deterministic image recognition. We don't have to be perfect to have a significant impact, and to stop the 99.x% of amateurs.

> Paper money being almost non-fungible is a great achievement

Going off on a tangent: Many people in technology and in the public look at cash as backward, boring, even socially embarassing technology. I think few it's amazing technology, an incredible hack: tech we struggle to implement in computers is implemented highly successfully and reliably in a piece of paper.

[frumplestlatz]

We also don’t have to forcibly insert nanny software into every 3d printer in the first place.

Not doing anything and preserving maximum agency is an entirely valid choice.

[justsomehnguy]

> It seems relatively simple to implement gun part recognition today, especially with the recent leap in image recognition capability

And it's sits fine with you because you are the one who wouldn't pay the price for this "simple image recognition capability". Except you would pay of course, indirectly but at least you wouldn't know for sure so your conscience would feel at ease.