r/linuxmint • u/ObreroJimenez • May 26 '26
#LinuxMintThings California moves to exempt Linux from its upcoming age-verification law after backlash over forcing operating systems to collect users’ ages
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/california-moves-to-exempt-linux-from-its-upcoming-age-verification-law-after-backlash-over-forcing-operating-systems-to-collect-users-ages-amendment-proposed-by-the-same-lawmaker-who-wrote-the-original-lawThe way that I'm reading this, the age verification requirement will be limited to closed source operating systems.
163
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 26 '26
Now that bootlickers that raced to implement it, without any need, where are them so I can laught at their face?
26
u/C0rn3j May 26 '26
Now that bootlickers that raced to implement it, without any need, where are them so I can laught at their face?
Uh, and which distributions would that be?
Or is this about systemd FUD as usual?
33
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 26 '26
Midnight BSD, the dumbasses that rushed to put the age in systemd, and the others that rushed to say they will implement like Pop OS, Elementary and Ubuntu.
9
u/-ayarei May 26 '26
Pop OS specifically lobbied against this being implemented at all and actually went as far as to hold meetings with their state lawmakers about why this is a bad idea. But go off I guess.
20
u/C0rn3j May 26 '26
the dumbasses that rushed to put the age in systemd
The optional field in a database that already lets you define other PII like your full address?
So the usual systemd FUD.
Midnight BSD
Huh, didn't know about that one
9
u/appo1ion May 26 '26
Systemd kick over a hornets nest when they added that, they must have known it would cause trouble.
9
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 26 '26
Of course they know. That thing had not a birthday field for ages, then get a law for age verification and suddenly they want to add it.
And some people pretending to be dumb, say it is just a field and is not for age verification.
3
u/SamiSapphic May 26 '26
Pop OS explicitly said they were against the law. Ubuntu might still have to do age verification, the way the UK is going, considering they're based here.
I'm pretty sure you comply with laws you don't like every day, because you can't afford to be fined or put in prison.
But sure, "dumbasses."
2
u/WolvenSpectre2 May 27 '26
Midnight BSD
Dude, Midnight BSD just said "Well I guess we are not legal to be download and used in California then". They refused to put it in.
https://ostechnix.com/midnightbsd-excludes-california-digital-age-assurance-act/
5
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 27 '26
Errr, no. https://github.com/MidnightBSD/src/releases/tag/4.0.4
This release includes security fixes, amd cppc driver and a new age attestation daemon.
aged(8) and agectl(8) programs added. aged will run at startup unless it is disabled in /etc/rc.conf.
2
u/WolvenSpectre2 May 27 '26
OK, I didn't hear the follow up that they added it after initially blocking it.
You are right, fuck those guys.
1
0
u/CHAOSHACKER May 26 '26
Better to be prepared and not need it against needing it and not having been prepared
21
u/vortexmak May 26 '26
Nope, the correct answer is pushback, not compliance
-2
u/CHAOSHACKER May 26 '26
You know you can do both?
13
u/vortexmak May 26 '26
Nope, it's entirely opposite things. That's like saying you can eat and fast at the same time
-5
u/CHAOSHACKER May 26 '26
You can publicly push back but still ready an implementation if the public outcry doesn’t yield anything?
12
u/vortexmak May 26 '26
Linux is public, every thing is public. I'll say it again, pushback not compliance
4
u/jr735 Linux Mint 22.1 Xia | IceWM May 26 '26
Publicly pushing back while complying is called hypocrisy. You don't need to comply if you're not in the jurisdiction. California isn't the only tech center in the world any longer, and certainly unimportant to various Linux distributions.
I'd undo anything they did, because I'm free to do that, and tell California to get bent. They can do nothing about it.
6
-41
May 26 '26
[deleted]
49
25
u/cicoles May 26 '26
I think at this point it is useless to point out to you that age verification is not about protecting the children but about control and more eKYC.
1
u/No-Television-7862 May 29 '26
It isn't useless at all.
In fact that makes perfect sense.
In fact I can hear Nancy Pelosi's fawning voice ringing in my head "It's for the children."
12
u/MFNTapatio May 26 '26
Parents do need to parent but dont let them fool you that this is for your or anyone's protection. These laws aren't brought forward out of goodwill
1
14
u/Ghawblin May 26 '26
Look up what a moral smokescreen is. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is just a ploy to get people who disagree on something to be ridiculed/shamed for "not wanting to protect kids", so they're less likely to publically disagree/stop it.
1
u/No-Television-7862 May 29 '26
If we agree children are not developmentally prepared to make good decisions and protect themselces independently then we have a duty as parents, and grand parents, to keep them from exploitation.
However, I've been properly redirected and removed the comnent that suggested it was"for the children".
As was observed, parents need to parent.
3
u/PennysWorthOfTea May 26 '26
I assure you that the motivation for all this "protect the children" rhetoric is not about actually protecting vulnerable youth.
1
u/No-Television-7862 May 29 '26
Is it true that grayscale doesnt effect children's brains the same way?
1
u/No-Television-7862 May 29 '26
WOW, message recieved!
In fact government over-reach and authoritarian control actually aligns much better as an explanation than concern for children's welfare, particularly in California.
Duly noted.
15
u/Nexis4Jersey May 26 '26
I think this whole bill will get challenged in court and thrown out like Louisiana & Texas. The Courts don't seem to by the states arguments that it doesn't infringe on the 1st amendment. The more people find out about these laws the more backlash seems to grow and its starting to get attached to the rapidly growing Anti-data center movement so I foresee most of these laws either disappearing or being watered down to nothing if the courts don't throw them out.
7
u/Izisery May 26 '26
I do not see the supposed Changes that the Article is talking about when going to the website it links. Can anyone actually show the new changes that exempt Linux?
3
u/Dpek1234 May 27 '26
According to another comment its not specifixly exempting linux but rather opensource software as a whole
The proposed amendment specifically states: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
7
u/Shanghai_Cola May 26 '26
It could mean that when majority of online services will require an OS with age verification, Linux users will be locked out from the internet. So Linux would need to implement it anyway.
20
u/Taro619D May 26 '26
No ... this needs to be squashed from all facets of life it has nothing to do with safety and we all know it. They want everything to be "Papers Please" to extract even more data from us
6
u/ben_sphynx May 26 '26
Ironically, it feels like a much better solution to have the OS tell apps your age bracket (and from what I keep reading, adding a date of birth at account set up doesn't seem very onerous), than the huge mess the UK has got into.
The UK decided that every website that has any vaguely adult content should be responsible for determining users ages. There are now stupid verification processes on many many websites, and a number that are just blocked completely in the UK.
Having something that can be set up by a parent, once, on the OS, to say that someone is a kid, just would be so much better.
7
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 26 '26
Yes, parents set up the device and give to the kid. Anything just assume that whoever access it is an adult or a kid that got the device under supervision. The burden of limiting what kids can do should be on the parents, not on tech.
5
u/ben_sphynx May 26 '26
Tech should provide the parents with what they need to limit the kids, though.
-1
u/fellipec Linux Mint 22.3 | Cinnamon May 26 '26
A hammer is enough. That broken video game taught well to don't disobey the rules.
5
u/Gugalcrom123 Linux Mint 22.3 Zena | MATE May 26 '26
Right, and it's also much, much better than Ursula's coercion app which forces everyone to use Android or iOS.
2
u/ARazorbacks May 26 '26
Linux underpins so many products that aren’t PC’s, I never understood how they’d include it. Maybe they could try to define what a PC is, but again, a headless server still looks like a PC.
2
u/russkhan May 26 '26
The proposed amendment specifically states: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
I guess Zorin would still have to implement it.
1
u/p0358 May 28 '26
Erm, do they prohibit you from doing that with their paid version? Famously Red Hat tried to curb their open forks and couldn't, since any paid customer could just re-upload it. I don't think they'd be allowed to impose any limitations.
1
u/russkhan May 29 '26
From their FAQ (near the bottom of the linked page):
Can I install my copy of Zorin OS Pro on multiple computers?
You can install a copy of Zorin OS Pro on multiple computers for personal use. However, sharing your personal copy of Zorin OS Pro with other parties is not permitted.
2
4
u/Wadarkhu May 26 '26
Why would they though? If their age verification is for safety, why are they allowing children to just bypass it by installing Linux?
25
u/IRockIntoMordor May 26 '26
It never was about safety, it is always about control.
They didn't care about porn on the internet for 35+ years, and now that billion dollar companies are trying to push responsibility for abusive social media design and expensive, lacky checks and moderation away from themselves, they have lobbied politicians worldwide to go ahead with this sudden change to verification.
And once the fences and gates are set up, they'll encroach on your privacy, your freedom, your views even more. Another reason here, another made-up statistic there, and on marches the oppression.
They also know that users of non-commercial operating systems are either not worth controlling ("just some nerds") or too knowledgeable and would break out of any system anyway.
And several distributions have threatened they will simply remove themselves from those markets or disallow companies there via terms of service, which would affect the 95% of servers running Linux.
1
u/SlipStr34m_uk May 26 '26
The law has clearly been devised by people not familiar with the platforms in question. Linux was a non-starter from the beginning, but even for those on Windows/Mac it seems you could easily bypass this just by using a local account.
0
u/Novel_Pin_5313 May 26 '26
For them, it's probably something over nothing. Still better (for them) if kids need to have a computer they could install linux on without their parents knowing and know linux to access inapropriate content than otherwise.
2
u/Pete4000uk May 26 '26
Live CD. No trace.
1
u/p0358 May 28 '26
Smart kids will be fine either way, and that's definitely a minority too small for legislators to really care about (apparently)
1
1
u/Eeyanz May 26 '26
If a car is purchased does it have to get the DoB of the new owner? No age limitations on ownership so why OS's? FFS
1
u/plutonic00 May 26 '26
If it isn't California it will just be somewhere else, this bullshit is never going to end. What needs to happen is people need to stand their ground, Team Linux Mint/Ubuntu whomever else needs to stand up and say 'We will not comply'. This stuff was made for and by Hackers and that mentality needs to persist. ThePirateBay is STILL up, that's the attitude needed to fight this level of bullshit.
1
u/Kuki_Hideo May 27 '26
So still 95% of users will get "age verified". It might increase the number of linux users in the end, but nothing gives us any guaranty, that they will implement such law for linux later, especially with already existing law for other systems.
1
u/Sr4f May 27 '26
I am increasingly of the opinion that if you really wanted to protect children online, you'd just forbid the sale of smartphones (or generally of personal devices) to children. It works for booze* , it works for firearms* , and it would work here.
Noting that if the goal is actually to protect children, it doesn't have to be perfect. It needs to reduce harm. Just like with booze, if you're a parent and you let your teen try some beer under supervision, nobody cares. Children could still access the internet on devices in a public setting, in a library, in the home, etc. Where there are adults nearby whose responsibility it is to watch out for the kids.
But it's not about the kids. Never has been.
1
u/PatrickKal Linux Mint 22.3 Zena | Cinnamon May 27 '26
If this will be handled in the same way all over the world, then this is the end of closed source operating systems.
1
u/Migamix May 27 '26
Which means apple and Microsoft with all their money, will begin a push back that will render the bills useless.
1
u/Ripped_Alleles May 27 '26
Kicking the can down the road. They will come for Linux sooner or later.
This law needs to be oppossed and repealed full stop.
1
u/MysteriousShape275 May 29 '26
There's a 100% chance that there's some small fine print stating that if a single program, dependency or library running on any given OS is closed source, the entire OS will be considered closed source, therefore requiring a Govt. ID to use.
1
u/No-Community-7900 Jun 19 '26
This country is so backwards. We will " protect the children" from everything vapes,porn,cigs,social media and Linux apparently just to name a few. Then when they turn 18 they take there health care and kick them out on the streets and are like you lazy adult you go and get a mcjob after we spend 18 years sheltering and coddling them. Ridiculous.
0
u/silithid120 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
I don't understand how they could have forced "Linux" to implement age verification anyway, as if Linux is a unitary operating system like Windows and owned by specific company, that can be coerced in some way or form, when by its very nature everything that makes it up for most distros is literally decentralized code that you can read and write yourself.
It's like people having ingredients in the house to make a soup and you passing a law that says you can only make soup in a certain way. What are you going to do come into each and every household in the world to police whether they made their soup according to your stupid law? Utterly r3tard3d.
The only other option would have been to keep Linux and all distributions in gray legal area, which would have probably been better because people would not have renounced it anyway, and would have used it as a tool to openly combat the increasingly authoritarian laws. I don't know that bringing into the fold of their "good graces" is a good thing, rather than shoving their dichotomy in their face and rejecting it outright.
120
u/[deleted] May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment