[jonathanstrange]

My view is that this must be left entirely to the parents. The only time a government should be allowed to interfere is when there are child abuse or neglect cases against the parents and the children are put under child protective care.

It is in my view crazy and irresponsible to allow the government override the parents' decisions about what media their children can consume. It is guaranteed that this power will be abused.

[gzread]

The CA/CO law is literally the government writing a law that says it shall be left to the parents but the device must give the parents the options they need.

[jonathanstrange]

So these laws state that device makers need to ensure that there is at least one operating system with parental controls that the parents can install?

That would be fine for me but AFAIK that's not what these laws state.

[gzread]

Why is every device OK but every OS isn't?

[jonathanstrange]

Because having one OS for a device with parental protections that parents can install is enough to achieve the goal, so the laws are obviously overreaching by mandating age controls for every OS when that's clearly not necessary. Having one Linux with age control that parents can install is much less intrusive and much more achievable than mandating every minuscule Linux distribution developed by hobbyists in their spare time to implement age control (which is practically impossible and never going to happen). And let's not even get started on the Internet of things...

[muyuu]

it says that, but the action of hardening devices effectively contradicts what it says

to be charitable, let's say that it "enhances" parental controls by taking on some of that parental enforcement at the state level

[gzread]

What action do you mean?

[muyuu]

the action of forcing any sort of verification or certification on devices or operating systems

this is taking the parental control largely into their own hands

[gzread]

This law doesn't force any sort of verification or certification, so it's fine then?

[hellojesus]

Does it effectively outlaw general computing for minors by requiring account holders to set up accounts for minors where account holders are defined as being 18+?

Im honestly not sure; but I could see that being the result of the law and companies like best buy disallowing minors from purchasing hardware with cash for fear of liability.

[muyuu]

it is obviously enforcement by proxy, trying to pretend otherwise is laughable but then again so is most of the shilling supporting this legislation

[tstrimple]

I've obviously read about how bad adult literacy in the US is, but I didn't realize how many "technologists" were impacted by it. The law is short and clear and doesn't involved attestation or age verification. Yet all these "hackers" claim it does just that. The reading comprehensions and critical thinking skills seem to match the national average.

[hellojesus]

I think most people here are extrapolating the intent behind this law, the triviality with which it can be bypassed by minor account holders, and what that means for the future. Once this law is in effect, it will be ineffectual. Minors that current don't know what VMs are, what live booting is, what keyloggers are, etc. will learn immediately once blog posts start circulating about bypass mechanisms. Parents will then go back to the legislature and say the law as-written sucks, and they will demand better laws, but the only way to get better is to force all devices to authenticate with the isp with a gov-issued id/token to prove the account is not a minor. But the only way to prevent even further workarounds like the OS lying is to force hardware based remote attlestation. And that means the death of general computing and the death of any anonymity.

[gzread]

Most laws are ineffectual. Kids can't drink alcohol but they still can; theft is illegal but I still got your car keys; murder is illegal but people still die. In this one, there's no punishment for bypass, just like there's no punishment for a kid who gets alcohol. Unlike the alcohol law this one doesn't even mandate the use of the child protection features - just their existence.

You know the simple fix to your problem is to mark VMs as adult only apps, anyway.

[hellojesus]

But what happens when a nefarious actor fills the void and publishes a root-kited VM and marks it as safe for children? These restrictions breed black markets that usually cause even more harm.

[gzread]

Same as when a nefarious actor serves alcohol to a minor anyway: they get fined or arrested.

[tstrimple]

> I think most people here are extrapolating the intent behind this law,

This is a revisionist fucking lie. People like you argue against the facts you have absolutely wrong. And when proven wrong you latch onto some tangential argument. But you have no integrity so you pretend it was actually about the other thing and not the thing you actually called out. You don't participate in good faith. You deserve no response in good faith.