this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
654 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.world
82227 readers
4510 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
654
California introduces age verification law for all operating systems, including Linux and SteamOS — user age verified during OS account setup (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Amoxtli@thelemmy.club to c/technology@lemmy.world
385 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (19 children)

Many people here are going off on wild tangents over this. You should just read the law, it's only a couple thousand words of quite plain English.

Many here have taken completely incorrect assumptions from the title. This law is for developers, not users.

Summary:

  1. Requires OS devs ask for DOB, age, or both at account creation time.
  2. Requires an API that allows app store devs to request this age data for the account. At minimum this API must signal that the account is a member of one of these categories: 'user under 13, user over 13 and under 16, user is over 16 and under 18, user is over 18'.
  3. Explicitly bars OS devs from sending more data than explicitly necessary to meet 1 (hint: photo ID, facial recognition).
  4. Explicitly bars app devs recieving the data from requesting more data from the OS nor the App store.
  5. Bars app stores from using the data for any other reason and specifically calls out anticompetitive practices.
  6. Bars app store and OS devs from sharing this data with any third party for any other reason than to comply with this law.
  7. Has injunctions and civil penalties of $2500 (max per user) affected by negligent violations (eg a child account is served adult content), and $7500 (max per user) affected by intentional violations.

The only problem I have with this is that it should only apply to commercial software (app stores and OS). Libre/FOS software should not have to police ages on their app stores, due to their far reduced budgets (often zero), developer time, and the nature of the software being generally anti-centralized and anti-surveillance-capitalism. Though I'd be fine with it for FOSS software distributed via commercial app stores, as long as they gave a longer lead time to implement (EG a couple of years).

[–] recked_wralph@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Im not sure I understand your point about this law being for developers not users.

The fines may only be applied to operating system developers for failing to implement these systems… but having those systems at all still drastically impacts end users in a negative way.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

Many users below are going off on rants about the police state fining them as end-users for user breeches (which is not any part of this law).

In addition, putting my age as 'over 18' in a box when i set up a login affects me in any way other than 'drastically'.

Eg: greenahimada with 51 upvotes 2 down.

For everyone trying to figure out how this would be enforced, it's not about being proactively enforced. (and data collection is 99% of it)

(Untrue)

It's about adding a double-tap "Well, these people also violated our age verification law, so they have to pay a fine," added to any incident where it's convenient to add this in. If a minor sends another minor a snap that would trigger CP laws, and one of the phones isn't age verified correctly, fine to the parents and hands up in the air "We tried!" A minor is involved in torrenting movies? "Look, kids using illegal OS! Fine to the parents!"

(Untrue)

This is how laws work across a lot of corrupt developing countries.

(.. Rant continues).

[–] recked_wralph@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It isn’t mandating you affirm you’re older than 18. It’s asking explicitly for your age or your birthday.

While the API then would take that data to transmit your age bracket to other systems.

This might not be drastically burdensome on an individual workstation, I’ll stand corrected on that. And it’s not disclosing your actual birthdate to anyone either (though I still feel like it should be my choice whether or not to store that information on my personal device).

In either case, we started with this “affirm your age” kind of law on various kinds of restricted websites (pornography and alcohol) and it’s easy to just lie. So now that is now morphing into more invasive age verification strategies.

I view this law as easily circumvented theater that has the aside effect of being a slippery slope toward more aggressive anti-privacy systems in the future.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)