Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Is California run by Maga now?Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote:I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that means
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Not at all.>
Is California run by Maga now?Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more
Nanny Law.
I will illegally use Linux anywhere I happen to be which
is San Francisco, California. We have some MAGA but mostly
they are farmers in the Central Valley.
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Is California run by Maga now?
Trimmed followups to: comp.os.linux.misc
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
ASFAIK it is a false rumor. My guess what you heard was
Age Validation:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1062112/
Is California run by Maga now?
The age verification law is a response to "protect the children"
so it is supported by both the GOP and Democrats.
I heard these laws are being funded by Meta so Meta can hand the cost
of Age Verification to the OS.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 20:45:59 -0000 (UTC), John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
Trimmed followups to: comp.os.linux.misc
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
ASFAIK it is a false rumor. My guess what you heard was
Age Validation:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1062112/
Yet the link you posted confirms the rumour.
Most Linux distributions are stand-alone and can be installed on
private computers that do not need to be connected with the internet.
"The law requires operating-system providers to provide a form of age verification that can be queried by any web site, application, or
online service "that distributes and facilitates the download of
applications from third-party developers" for computers, mobile
devices, or other general-purpose computing devices. The law goes into
effect on January 1, 2027, which leaves less than ten months for distributions to determine if the law applies to them and then
implement a solution if it does."
That would make most Linux distributions illegal in California.
Is California run by Maga now?
The age verification law is a response to "protect the children"
so it is supported by both the GOP and Democrats.
I heard these laws are being funded by Meta so Meta can hand the cost
of Age Verification to the OS.
And to enable Meta to collect more information on non-users for its
own use.
I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that
means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening.
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Not at all.
--Is California run by Maga now?Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more
Nanny Law.
I will illegally use Linux anywhere I happen to be which
is San Francisco, California. We have some MAGA but mostly
they are farmers in the Central Valley.
At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Not at all.>
I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that means >when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the California >lawmakers might not really understand they are opening.
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
Is California run by Maga now?
At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie Sellers<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a lawNot at all.
that would make Linux illegal there?
I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects*vendors*, whatever that
means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening.
Yep ... follow the money.
-a So, I guess Linux becomes an 'underground' OS.
-a "To protect the children" - BULLSHIT.
What about this, then?
"A recently enacted law in California imposes an age-verification
requirement on operating-system providers beginning next year. The
language of the Digital Age Assurance Act does not restrict its
requirements to proprietary or commercial operating systems; projects
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:16:23 -0000 (UTC), Robert Heller wrote:
I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that
means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the
California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening.
Most 'lawmakers' primary skill set is getting elected. Even leaving out
the ones that are congenitally stupid few really understand the fields
they are legislating. What they do understand is the lobbyists whispering
in their ears and promising to fund their next campaign.
On 12/05/2026 19:16, Robert Heller wrote:
At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie
Sellers<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a lawNot at all.
that would make Linux illegal there?
I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects*vendors*, whatever that
means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the
California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening.
I think the idea is that sweet little children must be indoctrinated in communism and Green cant uninterrupted by contact with the RealWorldrao
On Tue, 12 May 2026 20:45:59 -0000 (UTC), John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
Trimmed followups to: comp.os.linux.misc
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that
would make Linux illegal there?
ASFAIK it is a false rumor. My guess what you heard was
Age Validation:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1062112/
Yet the link you posted confirms the rumour.
Most Linux distributions are stand-alone and can be installed on
private computers that do not need to be connected with the internet.
"The law requires operating-system providers to provide a form of age verification that can be queried by any web site, application, or
online service "that distributes and facilitates the download of
applications from third-party developers" for computers, mobile
devices, or other general-purpose computing devices. The law goes into
effect on January 1, 2027, which leaves less than ten months for distributions to determine if the law applies to them and then
implement a solution if it does."
That would make most Linux distributions illegal in California.
Is California run by Maga now?
The age verification law is a response to "protect the children"
so it is supported by both the GOP and Democrats.
I heard these laws are being funded by Meta so Meta can hand the cost
of Age Verification to the OS.
And to enable Meta to collect more information on non-users for its
own use.
But getting past the emotional, instinctual "protect the kids" to have
the rational brain engage and realize what's up is difficult.
Script kiddies will run VPNs and so on in California and the rest of the world will ignore them.
(*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will
have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to actually determine your real chronological age (**).
On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:
(*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will
have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to
actually determine your real chronological age (**).
Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by >borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 14:31:46 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
But getting past the emotional, instinctual "protect the kids" to have
the rational brain engage and realize what's up is difficult.
I'm of the wrong generation. In the '50s us kids did a good job of protecting ourselves. Only a few got removed from the gene pool.
My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles
away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in
the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye.
In article <n6jsc0F2dl2U4@mid.individual.net>,
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:
(*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will
have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to
actually determine your real chronological age (**).
Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by
borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache.
That's cute. Then there's the other side of it. Someone who actually is
21 (or whatever) but looks younger. That person will end up suing
somebody.
Just out of curiosity, which existing systems actually do this (attempt to age-verify on-the-fly, using "facial recognition") ?
Anyway, wouldn't it just be easier to substitute a picture of your father?
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote or quoted:
My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles
away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in
the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye.
Yeah, there's this one movie where four best friends hike down a
railroad track for days just to find a dead body, and kids today
watch it and completely freak out over how they survived without
smartphones, GPS, or their parents tracking their exact location.
"Stand by Me" (1986)
My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles
away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in
the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye.
Yeah, there's this one movie where four best friends hike down a
railroad track for days just to find a dead body, and kids today watch
it and completely freak out over how they survived without
smartphones,
GPS, or their parents tracking their exact location.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:
(*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will
have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to
actually determine your real chronological age (**).
Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache.
And to enable Meta to collect more information on non-users for its
own use.
At this point, anyone on meta, ticktock, twitter and other
things like that deserve what they get.
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I really like to know how a distro would be able to force ageIt's a 100% guarantee that the people who wrote this into law have no
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and every-
thing, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop me to
revert any option they put in place?
I guess you can say that, but it is not an outright ban of
the kernel.
If the distro add Age Verification then that distro is not
illegal. I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't
be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education.
On 2026-05-13 19:15, John McCue wrote:
I guess you can say that, but it is not an outright ban of
the kernel.
If the distro add Age Verification then that distro is not
illegal.-a I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
For the moment, it is only about having the field in a database, but
there is nothing yet that uses that field. I mean, nothing that
populates that field.
And the distro has to use the home implementation of systemd. I don't
know how many distros use it: openSUSE doesn't.
St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't
be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
Your distro won't.
But, in typical politician methodology, there's a longer term "game
plan" here, and this is just the first part of a "boil the frog" [1] game.
Step one (which is happening now) is to get statutes setup such that
the OS is supposed to "know your age" and "report that age (or your
'age range') to app's that ask it for that data". Beyond that, the
current statutes do little if anything. And, of course, there's not
(yet) any requirement for the "age" you tell the OS to have any basis
in reality, so you can be six or sixty and tell your OS you are 102 and
the OS is just fine telling apps that ask "user is over 18".
A next likely step along the "boil the frog" path is for someone
somewhere to finally realize that providing the "ability to ask the OS"
does no good if the apps are not "required to ask". So the next step
of legislation could be a requirement that all apps (and written
broadly enough that "Firefox" on a desktop computer may be able to be considered an "app"). So now "Firefox" on your desktop has to ask your desktop OS what your age range is.
The next step could then be that "web browsers" must report the "age
range" signal they are required to ask for to every website that you
visit.
Then, once browsers are reporting "age range" to every website, the
next logical step along the path would be to require all websites to
honor the "age range" signal and refuse to communicate "harmful
content" to those who's age signal states they are below 18 years old
(or 21 or whatever is picked as the "appropriate age").
And, then once the politicians figure out that presuming "truth in
telling" of folks being asked "what's your age" by their OS means that
six year old's can claim to be 102, they will institute some form of government credential authentication of each users age. Cutting off
one's ability to simply bypass the "age verification" bullshit by
installing "age-range-d" and telling it you are 102. You'll (or
rather, age-range-d will) have to instead upload your government ID
(drivers license or other govt. id) to some govt server in order to
receive some form of "token" that indicates you are "properly old
enough". Then your browser will have to deliver that token to every
website so each website can then make a backend auth call to the govt authenticate service to verify the token's validity before it can
serve you "harmful content".
Plus, given how politicians go, "harmful content" will begin as
something like pornography, but then some kid will become indoctrinated
in some cult somewhere, and suddenly, to "save the children" extreme
content (but not porn) will also be "harmful" and be behind the age
gate. Then, later, some kid will burn their fingers by repeating what
they saw on a youtube video about repairing a broken lithium ion
battery and suddenly "think of the children" will age gate "battery
repair videos".
Meanwhile, because this government credential that might be used to verify your age is sent to every website you visit, so they can decide what to
serve or not, is also a unique tracking identifier of you and everywhere
you go online, it will be scarfed up by the advertisers as their
ultimate wet-dream tracking identifier, and scarfed up by the government censors as their ultimate wet-dream identifier for deanonymizing
everyone on the internet so they can censor all those "harmful things"
people say about stuff all the time online.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog--
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't
be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
On 5/15/26 16:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-05-13 19:15, John McCue wrote:
I guess you can say that, but it is not an outright ban of
the kernel.
If the distro add Age Verification then that distro is not
illegal.-a I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
For the moment, it is only about having the field in a database, but
there is nothing yet that uses that field. I mean, nothing that
populates that field.
And the distro has to use the home implementation of systemd. I don't
know how many distros use it: openSUSE doesn't.
-a Oh well, if this totalitarian hack-friendly 'feature'
-a comes to dominate then I'm sticking with old versions
-a of Linux for a long time.
-a NONE of this is to "protect children" ya know ...
On 2026-05-15 23:44, Rich wrote:
St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>> -a-a be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>> -a-a from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
-a-a verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
-a-a everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>> -a-a me to revert any option they put in place?
Your distro won't.
But, in typical politician methodology, there's a longer term "game
plan" here, and this is just the first part of a "boil the frog" [1]
game.
Step one (which is happening now) is to get statutes setup such that
the OS is supposed to "know your age" and "report that age (or your
'age range') to app's that ask it for that data".-a Beyond that, the
current statutes do little if anything.-a And, of course, there's not
(yet) any requirement for the "age" you tell the OS to have any basis
in reality, so you can be six or sixty and tell your OS you are 102 and
the OS is just fine telling apps that ask "user is over 18".
A next likely step along the "boil the frog" path is for someone
somewhere to finally realize that providing the "ability to ask the OS"
does no good if the apps are not "required to ask".-a So the next step
of legislation could be a requirement that all apps (and written
broadly enough that "Firefox" on a desktop computer may be able to be
considered an "app").-a So now "Firefox" on your desktop has to ask your
desktop OS what your age range is.
The next step could then be that "web browsers" must report the "age
range" signal they are required to ask for to every website that you
visit.
Then, once browsers are reporting "age range" to every website, the
next logical step along the path would be to require all websites to
honor the "age range" signal and refuse to communicate "harmful
content" to those who's age signal states they are below 18 years old
(or 21 or whatever is picked as the "appropriate age").
And, then once the politicians figure out that presuming "truth in
telling" of folks being asked "what's your age" by their OS means that
six year old's can claim to be 102, they will institute some form of
government credential authentication of each users age.-a Cutting off
one's ability to simply bypass the "age verification" bullshit by
installing "age-range-d" and telling it you are 102.-a You'll (or
rather, age-range-d will) have to instead upload your government ID
(drivers license or other govt.-a id) to some govt server in order to
receive some form of "token" that indicates you are "properly old
enough".-a Then your browser will have to deliver that token to every
website so each website can then make a backend auth call to the govt
authenticate service to verify the token's validity before it can
serve you "harmful content".
Plus, given how politicians go, "harmful content" will begin as
something like pornography, but then some kid will become indoctrinated
in some cult somewhere, and suddenly, to "save the children" extreme
content (but not porn) will also be "harmful" and be behind the age
gate.-a Then, later, some kid will burn their fingers by repeating what
they saw on a youtube video about repairing a broken lithium ion
battery and suddenly "think of the children" will age gate "battery
repair videos".
Meanwhile, because this government credential that might be used to
verify
your age is sent to every website you visit, so they can decide what to
serve or not, is also a unique tracking identifier of you and everywhere
you go online, it will be scarfed up by the advertisers as their
ultimate wet-dream tracking identifier, and scarfed up by the government
censors as their ultimate wet-dream identifier for deanonymizing
everyone on the internet so they can censor all those "harmful things"
people say about stuff all the time online.
Aye.
If Rich description comes to be, then if you try to use a non
complying with the law distribution, you may be refused service by
web sites.
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if
we agree with it or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
And, then once the politicians figure out that presuming "truth in
telling" of folks being asked "what's your age" by their OS means that
six year old's can claim to be 102, they will institute some form of government credential authentication of each users age. Cutting off
one's ability to simply bypass the "age verification" bullshit by
installing "age-range-d" and telling it you are 102. You'll (or
rather, age-range-d will) have to instead upload your government ID
(drivers license or other govt. id) to some govt server in order to
receive some form of "token" that indicates you are "properly old
enough". Then your browser will have to deliver that token to every
website so each website can then make a backend auth call to the govt authenticate service to verify the token's validity before it can
serve you "harmful content".
On 15 May 2026 20:29:34 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education.
There is a real issue with harm from social media, that seems to be
out of control.
And the media companies themselves are very reluctant
to do anything about it.
Young people seem particularly vulnerable, particularly being
influenced into extreme self-harm behaviour. It is simply not
practical for parents to watch their children all the time, and as for rCLeducationrCY -- peer pressure often tends to be stronger than anything their parents can say. Hence the global trend towards age-restriction
laws.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:47:04 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
If Rich description comes to be, then if you try to use a non
complying with the law distribution, you may be refused service by
web sites.
How would they tell?
There is a right way to do this -- provide reliable assurances of age
while preserving user privacy: using something called rCLzero-knowledge proofsrCY. The powers that be and their expert advisors know about this,
but the technique is still considered rCLexperimentalrCY.
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't
be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we
agree with it or not.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws
in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers what to do next.
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we
agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws
in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers
what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
On 15 May 2026 20:29:34 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education.
There is a real issue with harm from social media, that seems to be
out of control. And the media companies themselves are very reluctant
to do anything about it.
Young people seem particularly vulnerable, particularly being
influenced into extreme self-harm behaviour. It is simply not
practical for parents to watch their children all the time, and as for rCLeducationrCY -- peer pressure often tends to be stronger than anything their parents can say. Hence the global trend towards age-restriction
laws.
But there are loopholes, of course. So in their frenzy to plug these loopholes, some lawmakers want to extend the restrictions into other
areas, like computer operating systems and VPN services.
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we
agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws
in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers
what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Le 16-05-2026, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 15 May 2026 20:29:34 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education.
There is a real issue with harm from social media, that seems to be
out of control.
I'm not denying the issue with social media. I'm saying that, it's an educational issue, not a technical one. The parents let their children spending their all time unsupervised on social media.
And the media companies themselves are very reluctant
to do anything about it.
Of course, they want to win more money. And Musk has a political agenda
to accomplish.
Young people seem particularly vulnerable, particularly being
influenced into extreme self-harm behaviour. It is simply not
practical for parents to watch their children all the time, and as for
rCLeducationrCY -- peer pressure often tends to be stronger than anything
their parents can say. Hence the global trend towards age-restriction
laws.
Of course, the parents can't educate their children, they can't limit
the way their children are using their smartphones so the government has
to find a way to stop it. We can say children shouldn't smoke and
children shouldn't drink alcohol, but we can't say children shouldn't
access social media.
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we
agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm
neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws
in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn,
alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
The problem is, that apps and platforms DO comply, however alternatives always exist, and FOSS will remain an alternative.
Yes, but in California (and maybe more states) the OS must answer with
the age. Thus Linux distributions have to solve this. Does not matter if
it is not the proper way.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Yes, but in California (and maybe more states) the OS must answer with
the age. Thus Linux distributions have to solve this. Does not matter if
it is not the proper way.
Are we talking about the California Age Assuration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Digital_Age_Assurance_Act)?
Under this act, the OS must just provide an age bracket of the user.
Yes, in the absense of an "unknown" value this is probably equally--
bad.
Gr|+|fe
Marc
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I
didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we
agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm
neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws
in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn,
alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
The problem is, that apps and platforms DO comply, however alternatives always exist, and FOSS will remain an alternative.--
On 2026-05-16 14:32, Borax Man wrote:
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>>>> didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>>>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>>>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >>>> agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm
neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >>>> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, >>> alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
That's an USAian trait, actually. They even name their country America forgetting the continent, and that Mexicans and Argentinians and
Brazilian can say "We are Americans".
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 14:32, Borax Man wrote:
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>>>>> didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and >>>>>> everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >>>>> agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm >>>> neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides >>>> a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have >>>> no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >>>>> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>>>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law >>>> to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, >>>> alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
That's an USAian trait, actually. They even name their country America
forgetting the continent, and that Mexicans and Argentinians and
Brazilian can say "We are Americans".
While the US is the poster child for "you must follow *our* laws,
despite the fact you live in another country half a world away" most of
the other major countries also fall afoul for the same mindset to
varying degrees when it comes to "the internet" and making laws
specific for themselves that "others, half a world away" are expected
to abide by.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
I grew up in a different California and Nevada than
are currently available but still I found a place to be here in San
Francisco for the last 59 years so I live in a place where the skies may
be cloudy and it can rain a lot but the wind off the Pacific blows the
clouds away and dries the streets. U
You still have to abide by a law, the French law in your case. And the
Linux distribution you have must include whatever is needed to abide by
all the laws in the world, including the Californian law (and the French law). The system has to know the country of the user, and then, select
the bunch of laws for that country.
Easy. The site ask the browser to ask the system for the age of the
user, or "is the user older than 18?". The browser replies with an
error, system does not answer or errors out. Site pops a message about system not compliant and aborts login procedure.
On 2026-05-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Easy. The site ask the browser to ask the system for the age of the
user, or "is the user older than 18?". The browser replies with an
error, system does not answer or errors out. Site pops a message about
system not compliant and aborts login procedure.
Or, the open-source operating system has been modified to return
a random age between 18 and 100 to the browser.
Applying the same thing for accessing a computer is way more
difficult.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:47:04 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
If Rich description comes to be, then if you try to use a non
complying with the law distribution, you may be refused service by
web sites.
How would they tell?
There is a right way to do this -- provide reliable assurances of age
while preserving user privacy: using something called rCLzero-knowledge proofsrCY. The powers that be and their expert advisors know about this,
but the technique is still considered rCLexperimentalrCY.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:44:57 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if
we agree with it or not.
If it can be shown to be impossible to comply with the law as it
stands in any reasonable fashion, I think that, too, can be considered
as an excuse for non-compliance.
Or it better be. Because I canrCOt think of anything better to trigger a massive civil-disobedience campaign that will turn enforcement
attempts into a complete farce.
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's boozeDid playboy sell booze?
-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze
-a-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
Did playboy sell booze?
On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:whoosh...
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze
-a-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
Did playboy sell booze?
-a Nah ... you had to get that from
-a another guy !
On 16 May 2026 08:56:04 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Applying the same thing for accessing a computer is way more
difficult.
It can be done.
Most of us already perform security-sensitive operations on the
Internet on a daily basis, without thinking too hard about it: the
same sorts of mechanisms can be adapted to provide the necessary age verification.
On 2026-05-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
You still have to abide by a law, the French law in your case. And the
Linux distribution you have must include whatever is needed to abide by
all the laws in the world, including the Californian law (and the French
law). The system has to know the country of the user, and then, select
the bunch of laws for that country.
Actually you don't need to abide. Linux open source it would certainly
be possible to distribute forks with that garbage patched out. What
is needed is massive disobedience to the point where for the
enforcers it is like playing whack-a-mole.
That doesn't work if sites query for age and get no reply.
Le 16-05-2026, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a |-crit-a:
Most of us already perform security-sensitive operations on the
Internet on a daily basis, without thinking too hard about it: the
same sorts of mechanisms can be adapted to provide the necessary age
verification.
You have to do better than that to explain how it can be done to prevent
me to access my personal computer without age verification with Linux installed on it.
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's boozeDid playboy sell booze?
-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze
-a-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
Did playboy sell booze?
Nah ... you had to get that from
another guy !
Thing is, ALWAYS is, that there's always
"another guy". Prohibitionism NEVER works.
Just drives the prohibited whatever
underground - and funds people that maybe
we don't want funded.
But, where *they* could go (note, no idea if the politicians will ever
reach this point) is requiring some "government authenticator" be used
for accessing networked services (i.e., for accessing the internet) [1].
You would need to use a govt. issued ID (drivers license for US
residents, national ID card for much of the rest of the world) to authenticate your age with the "Age-ta" govt. system, and all internet services (i.e., all websites) which "might" in some way happen to
sometimes offer up "age inappropriate" content [2] to also use the govt "Age-ta" system to authenticate that you are indeed "old-enough" to be
served content.
Prohibition works *by* driving whatever is prohibited underground. Which results in far fewer being able to obtain it. Which the politician who
was pushing prohibit Y takes up and proclaims as a win (no more "bad
stuff Y" being sold at corner markets....). They ignore than for those
who know how, they can still get bad stuff Y via the underground, the
corner stores were the real targets anyway, as that reduced the sales of
Y by a huge amount.
On 17/05/2026 07:17, c186282 wrote:
On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:whoosh...
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze
-a-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
Did playboy sell booze?
-a Nah ... you had to get that from another guy !
St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a |-crit-a:
Most of us already perform security-sensitive operations on the
Internet on a daily basis, without thinking too hard about it: the
same sorts of mechanisms can be adapted to provide the necessary age
verification.
You have to do better than that to explain how it can be done to prevent
me to access my personal computer without age verification with Linux
installed on it.
You may have overlooked the trolls "on the internet" part of his
statement. Catching that meaning is critical to understand the point
he's making (surprisingly, without being trollish this time).
*They* simply won't be able to prevent you accessing your personal
computer that is running linux, for the very reason you later state,
you can "undo" anything that might have been "done" to your Linux installation to remove the age restrictions.
Therefore, barring some *other* law requiring only "Android/Apple
style" computers be in use by *everyone* there's nothing that can
prevent you from accessing your personal computer, so long as you
remain an isolated (i.e., not networked) CPU of one.
But, where *they* could go (note, no idea if the politicians will ever
reach this point) is requiring some "government authenticator" be used
for accessing networked services (i.e., for accessing the internet)
[1]. You would need to use a govt. issued ID (drivers license for US residents, national ID card for much of the rest of the world) to authenticate your age with the "Age-ta" govt. system, and all internet services (i.e., all websites) which "might" in some way happen to
sometimes offer up "age inappropriate" content [2] to also use the govt "Age-ta" system to authenticate that you are indeed "old-enough" to be
served content.
The result could then be that all "internet properties" that might
return anything that might be "age-inapproriate" will be required to
follow this authenticator.
So if your local Linux PC has not "authenticated" you with the govt.
system, then Google's search page would be required to returns a "not authorized" page instead of allowing you to perform a search, because *sometimes* search results that are not "age appropriate" are returned.
Bing would similarilly be required to do so as well, plus duck duck go,
plus all the other search engines. Now, you can no longer search the internet for anything unless you first "authenticate your age" via the
govt "Age-ta" system.
Similarially, because gmail and hotmail and outlook.com and the other
"email providers" *could* be used by pedo's to groom under age users,
the politicials will force them to also "authenticate your age". So
now you get a "not authorized" page instead of your email until your
Linux machine bends the knee to the govt censors.
And if the politicians extend things enough, they *could* require that
all websites use the govt age authenticator. And if that happens,
suddenly you find yourself cut off from the internet. No websites, no
email, potentially no Usenet if Usenet providers end up ensnared in the
"all websites" sweep, until your Linux PC authenticates via the govt.
auth. system.
I.e., they (politicians) flip the internet from "free to access for
anyone" to "everyone must be 'logged in' before any access is allowed".
The plumbing already exists. That's how you "log in" to your bank, or
your gmail account now. If they extend "must log in" to *everything*
then your choices as a hold out Linux user modifying your local OS to
remove age verification have two choices. Return to the 1980's state
of computing (no internet, at best sneaker-net for file sharing via
in-person trading of USB thumb drives) or bend the knee to the censors,
add back the age verification authenticator to your Linux system, and
be able to access the post 1990's computing world.
That's how they would do it. They don't prevent you access to your
local computer. They shut you off from "the world" and isolate you
until you give up and bend the knee.
And with the average joe's perception of "the internet" being the
giants (google, facebook, amazon) and little to no recognition of the
larger "internet" it only takes the "giants" complying with the govt. mandates for a tipping point to be reached such that the rest of the
internet simply complies because doing so is easier (and more
profitable) than resisting.
[1] If you are at all familiar with it, something like Okta, but
instead this one would be (made up name) "Age-ta" instead (https://www.okta.com/)
[2] Note than in standard politician method, the definition of "age-inappropriate" will begin narrow such that it looks like they are targeting porn, but once in place the definition will begin expanding
to target anything the political class does not like that occurs after
the laws are all in place.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
Prohibition works *by* driving whatever is prohibited underground. Which
results in far fewer being able to obtain it. Which the politician who
was pushing prohibit Y takes up and proclaims as a win (no more "bad
stuff Y" being sold at corner markets....). They ignore than for those
who know how, they can still get bad stuff Y via the underground, the
corner stores were the real targets anyway, as that reduced the sales of
Y by a huge amount.
Prohibition itself and the War on Drugs point out how effective the legislation is. Marijuana is legal in this state. The difference is the state gets a 22% sales take from the corner dispensary.
And, yes, it seems there is a dispensary on every corner. I'm not sure how they all survive economically. There are a lot more of them than liquor stores.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 10:28:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Indeed, and no grocers apostrophes
On 17/05/2026 07:17, c186282 wrote:
On 5/17/26 01:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:whoosh...
On 17/05/2026 04:42, c186282 wrote:
Hey, think we couldn't get Playboy's booze
-a-a and weed in the 60s ???-a EfOe
Did playboy sell booze?
-a Nah ... you had to get that from another guy !
What? You want correct plurals and Oxford commas?
Le 16-05-2026, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 16 May 2026 08:56:04 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Applying the same thing for accessing a computer is way more
difficult.
It can be done. Most of us already perform security-sensitive
operations on the Internet on a daily basis, without thinking too
hard about it: the same sorts of mechanisms can be adapted to
provide the necessary age verification.
Way more difficult is not the same thing as can't be done. Now, it's
easy on a Microsoft or Apple computer with closed source impossible
to modify.
You have to do better than that to explain how it can be done to
prevent me to access my personal computer without age verification
with Linux installed on it.
It works if the operating system is patched to provide a phony age
in response to such queries.
This is why no workable system would rely on a response from the other
end that comes without attestation.
On 2026-05-16 14:32, Borax Man wrote:
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>>>> didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>>>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>>>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >>>> agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm
neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >>>> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, >>> alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
That's an USAian trait, actually. They even name their country America forgetting the continent, and that Mexicans and Argentinians and
Brazilian can say "We are Americans".
The problem is, that apps and platforms DO comply, however alternatives
always exist, and FOSS will remain an alternative.
On 5/16/26 05:32, Borax Man wrote:
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>>>> didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them >>>>> from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and
everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop >>>>> me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >>>> agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm
neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides
a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have
no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >>>> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law
to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, >>> alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
No Californians do not think that the entire world is theirs. The Legislature though is not technically oriented and the big actors on
the Internet Stage do not want to assume responsibility for their content.
The problem is, that apps and platforms DO comply, however alternatives
always exist, and FOSS will remain an alternative.
We in California who use Open Source and happen to have
gotten here before all the places were taken are a bit snotty about
our good luck. I grew up in a different California and Nevada than
are currently available but still I found a place to be here in
San Francisco for the last 59 years so I live in a place where the
skies may be cloudy and it can rain a lot but the wind off the
Pacific blows the clouds away and dries the streets. Unless it
is a wind from the land which is even dryer usually. So dry that
it starts fires in the tatty dried grass covering the steep sides
of various mini-mountain ranges to the North, East and South.
I don't really care what you call that body of water near Texas, or your continent. It has no effect on Australians.
What DOES affect us is the crappy company culture and other cultural initiatives that you export. Its when we in Australia have to toe
American cultural lines, and often they are the East/West Coast Liberal
Elite ideas.
On 2026-05-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 14:32, Borax Man wrote:
On 2026-05-16, St|-phane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 16-05-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a |-crit-a:
On 2026-05-15 22:29, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 13-05-2026, John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> a |-crit-a:
I heard systemd added an optional age field a
specific distro can force upon its use on their users.
I read things about that, but nothing technical, only rhetorical so I >>>>>> didn't took care of it because:
- The principle is stupid, the issue is about education. If people can't >>>>>> be educated when they are child or later, then one can't protect them
from themselves forever.
- I really like to know how a distro would be able to force age
verification on my computer. I mean, it's Linux, it's FOSS and >>>>>> everything, it's not Windows or Apple. So what could they do to stop
me to revert any option they put in place?
No, the real issue is complying with the law. It does not matter if we >>>>> agree with it or not.
Except that we are speaking about agreeing with California law when I'm >>>> neither a Californian nor living there. So if the distribution provides >>>> a way to enforce Californian law, as a french living in France, I have >>>> no obligation, neither moral nor legal, to follow it.
It does not matter if we think it is about education.
For now, there is nothing in the law about that in France. So I don't
care about the rhetorical discussions about it because I consider the
principle being stupid.
So now the legal teams in distributions are analyzing the several laws >>>>> in the world and trying to then tell the developers and system designers >>>>> what to do next.
For now, what I hear is most about trying to know how to evolve the law >>>> to take social media into account because it's not covered. Unlike porn, >>>> alcohol, drugs or cigarettes.
Californians seem to think the entire world is theirs. I think they
don't realise there are other places where they can do what they want,
and don't have to follow their insane lead.
That's an USAian trait, actually. They even name their country America
forgetting the continent, and that Mexicans and Argentinians and
Brazilian can say "We are Americans".
The problem is, that apps and platforms DO comply, however alternatives
always exist, and FOSS will remain an alternative.
I don't really care what you call that body of water near Texas, or your continent. It has not effect on Australians.
What DOES affect us is the crappy company culture and other cultural initiatives that you export. Its when we in Australia have to toe
American cultural lines, and often they are the East/West Coast Liberal
Elite ideas.
What DOES affect us is the crappy company culture and other cultural initiatives that you export. Its when we in Australia have to toe
American cultural lines, and often they are the East/West Coast Liberal
Elite ideas.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:11:25 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
But, where *they* could go (note, no idea if the politicians will ever
reach this point) is requiring some "government authenticator" be used
for accessing networked services (i.e., for accessing the internet) [1].
You would need to use a govt. issued ID (drivers license for US
residents, national ID card for much of the rest of the world) to
authenticate your age with the "Age-ta" govt. system, and all internet
services (i.e., all websites) which "might" in some way happen to
sometimes offer up "age inappropriate" content [2] to also use the govt
"Age-ta" system to authenticate that you are indeed "old-enough" to be
served content.
The camel's nose is in the tent with the Social Security Administration. There are two schemes for verification; pick one. I believe both require a DL or equivalent and a facial photo. Fortunately I don't have to log into their site.
On 2026-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:11:25 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
But, where *they* could go (note, no idea if the politicians will ever
reach this point) is requiring some "government authenticator" be used
for accessing networked services (i.e., for accessing the internet) [1]. >>> You would need to use a govt. issued ID (drivers license for US
residents, national ID card for much of the rest of the world) to
authenticate your age with the "Age-ta" govt. system, and all internet
services (i.e., all websites) which "might" in some way happen to
sometimes offer up "age inappropriate" content [2] to also use the govt
"Age-ta" system to authenticate that you are indeed "old-enough" to be
served content.
The camel's nose is in the tent with the Social Security Administration.
There are two schemes for verification; pick one. I believe both require a >> DL or equivalent and a facial photo. Fortunately I don't have to log into
their site.
For those in the US, the IRS is even worse. They have only one
option for authentication, ID.Me. That option requires either a
selfie or a video chat. My main desktop machine doesn't do
selfies, and it doesn't do video chat because it's behind double
IPv4 NAT, which Zoom chokes on. My 4G flip phone doesn't really
do selfies, and its browser is way too limited to do video chat.
So, instead of getting a direct deposit from the IRS in April,
I'm expecting my refund by paper check in the second half of
June--unless the IRS finds yet another way to delay it. The
direct deposit information was perfectly readable on my paper tax
return document. The IRS's OCR just couldn't read it, probably
because a few of the digits touched the bounding box.
The direct deposit information was perfectly readable on my paper
tax return document.
The documents were generated by Acrobat Reader, so not really an
open format ...
On 2026-05-18 22:35, Robert Riches wrote:The problem with "on-line" filing in the US is that the IRS does not have a
On 2026-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2026 15:11:25 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:
But, where *they* could go (note, no idea if the politicians will ever >>> reach this point) is requiring some "government authenticator" be used >>> for accessing networked services (i.e., for accessing the internet) [1]. >>> You would need to use a govt. issued ID (drivers license for US
residents, national ID card for much of the rest of the world) to
authenticate your age with the "Age-ta" govt. system, and all internet >>> services (i.e., all websites) which "might" in some way happen to
sometimes offer up "age inappropriate" content [2] to also use the govt >>> "Age-ta" system to authenticate that you are indeed "old-enough" to be >>> served content.
The camel's nose is in the tent with the Social Security Administration. >> There are two schemes for verification; pick one. I believe both require a >> DL or equivalent and a facial photo. Fortunately I don't have to log into >> their site.
For those in the US, the IRS is even worse. They have only one
option for authentication, ID.Me. That option requires either a
selfie or a video chat. My main desktop machine doesn't do
selfies, and it doesn't do video chat because it's behind double
IPv4 NAT, which Zoom chokes on. My 4G flip phone doesn't really
do selfies, and its browser is way too limited to do video chat.
So, instead of getting a direct deposit from the IRS in April,
I'm expecting my refund by paper check in the second half of
June--unless the IRS finds yet another way to delay it. The
direct deposit information was perfectly readable on my paper tax
return document. The IRS's OCR just couldn't read it, probably
because a few of the digits touched the bounding box.
In Spain, we no longer fill the taxes in paper, but when we did, years
back, there was a page with several large graphical bit codes that
scanners could read easily. That was the only part that mattered, they
did not OCR the document at all.
The documents were generated by Acrobat Reader, so not really an open
format, which is one reason they disappeared and now we fill them only online.
Prohibition itself and the War on Drugs point out how effective the legislation is. Marijuana is legal in this state. The difference is the state gets a 22% sales take from the corner dispensary.
On 2026-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
Prohibition itself and the War on Drugs point out how effective the
legislation is. Marijuana is legal in this state. The difference is the
state gets a 22% sales take from the corner dispensary.
And there you have it. The only difference between legal and illegal
drugs is whether the government gets a cut.
In Spain, we no longer fill the taxes in paper, but when we did, years
back, there was a page with several large graphical bit codes that
scanners could read easily. That was the only part that mattered, they
did not OCR the document at all.
The problem with "on-line" filing in the US is that the IRS does not
have a way for people filing their to just upload the forms or even to directly fill them out electronicly directly with the IRS. Instead,
there are a number of *commercial* entities that you can file your taxes
with (for a fee for non-trivial filings), but it is not a direct form
filling out, it is some cutely coded website that is "User Friendly".
Well, maybe if you have a dumb and simple tax return.
On 2026-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
Prohibition itself and the War on Drugs point out how effective the
legislation is. Marijuana is legal in this state. The difference is the
state gets a 22% sales take from the corner dispensary.
And there you have it. The only difference between legal
and illegal drugs is whether the government gets a cut.
On 5/18/26 14:18, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
Prohibition itself and the War on Drugs point out how effective the
legislation is. Marijuana is legal in this state. The difference is the
state gets a 22% sales take from the corner dispensary.
And there you have it.-a The only difference between legal
and illegal drugs is whether the government gets a cut.
-a-a-a-aBut to get to that point many people took the role of
medical cannabis to a new point so that state by state we won
legalization of that legitimate use of cannabis.-a When the
state decided to legalize recreational use of cannabis and
the physicians still could not legally prescribe the use of
cannabis for their patients the medical exception no longer
applied.-a So taxes were imposed that increased the cost
to medical patients who were no longer able to use the
services of physicians who did not care about the Federal
govenment's inane rules.
-a-a-a-abliss
Of course "attestation" is the end game that the people pushing are
really after. The time to push back is now, before "attestation" to
simply make use of the internet is imposed.
Its when we in Australia have to toe American cultural lines, and
often they are the East/West Coast Liberal Elite ideas.
The problem with "on-line" filing in the US is that the IRS does not
have a way for people filing their to just upload the forms or even
to directly fill them out electronicly directly with the IRS.
Instead, there are a number of *commercial* entities that you can
file your taxes with (for a fee for non-trivial filings), but it is
not a direct form filling out, it is some cutely coded website that
is "User Friendly". Well, maybe if you have a dumb and simple tax
return.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:37:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Its when we in Australia have to toe American cultural lines, and often
they are the East/West Coast Liberal Elite ideas.
Amusing to hear you describe *any* USians as rCLliberalrCY. I know they see themselves that way, but realistically, as far as the rest of the world
is concerned (e.g. here in NZ), what we would call rCLcentristrCY is what they would call rCLsocialistrCY.
So taxes were imposed that increased the cost
to medical patients who were no longer able to use the services of
physicians who did not care about the Federal govenment's inane rules.
Is this the result of political lobbying by the tax companies? Because
here in Efc|Efc+, ordinary people like myself have no problem logging on to the IRD website and submitting our returns directly. Checking my
records, I signed up for an account with them over a decade and a half
ago.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 02:13:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Is this the result of political lobbying by the tax companies? Because
here in Efc|Efc+, ordinary people like myself have no problem logging on to >> the IRD website and submitting our returns directly. Checking my
records, I signed up for an account with them over a decade and a half
ago.
You bet your bippy. H&R Block supposedly offers free online filing if your tax return is not complicated. 'You received income last year? That's
pretty complicated.' Supposedly the IRS has a free filing program too with the stipulation 'you may qualify...'
There's just enough there so say you can file for free with a straight
face if you're willing to jump through the hoops and up sell come-ons. There's big money in tax preparations and the CPAs don't like people
trying to break their rice bowls.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:59:28 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (7,546K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,184 |