Alternative source for pay wall Found this via Reddit. Looks like age verification is even getting baked in to the OS. It blocks downloading apps and even adult websites (source). From what I...
Found this via Reddit. Looks like age verification is even getting baked in to the OS. It blocks downloading apps and even adult websites (source).
From what I understand in Colorado and California(!) they are introducing laws to bake age verification in desktop OS including Linux (reddit1,reddit2)
This direction of travel is rather concerning to me. The quite rapid moves to seize control over all computing technology does really concern me, especially as it seems to be an international effort to gain this control. Most people don’t seem to care and I doubt a political solution will be possible. Is anyone else concerned by this? I fundamentally believe privacy is required for a functioning democracy and these kind of moves would give an authoritarian government way too much control in the digital era.
That all of these age verification laws are appearing at roughly the same time globally is very strange. Not to sound conspiratorial, but the case for there being some central authority pushing...
That all of these age verification laws are appearing at roughly the same time globally is very strange. Not to sound conspiratorial, but the case for there being some central authority pushing for them is strong.
It's not a strong case at all, what are you talking about? There are many factors that could explain that other than national governments being directed by a "central authority", factors which are...
It's not a strong case at all, what are you talking about? There are many factors that could explain that other than national governments being directed by a "central authority", factors which are more persuasive and require no conspiracies at all.
To be clear, I was thinking something more along the lines of wealthy or otherwise politically powerful individuals lobbying for this kind of thing rather than anything more “out there”, but you...
To be clear, I was thinking something more along the lines of wealthy or otherwise politically powerful individuals lobbying for this kind of thing rather than anything more “out there”, but you may be right.
It just feels like a strange thing for so many governments of different levels to suddenly align on. Normally legislation is much more random and concerned with challenges unique to each jurisdiction.
To be fair, I suppose these challenges are more global than previously - the internet and the large American social platforms that define it these days are everywhere.
To be fair, I suppose these challenges are more global than previously - the internet and the large American social platforms that define it these days are everywhere.
I think it's less complex than that. Governments are often scared to take the first step on something that seems politically unpopular. As soon as the first goes, the rest follows.
I think it's less complex than that. Governments are often scared to take the first step on something that seems politically unpopular. As soon as the first goes, the rest follows.
Yeah, it's absolutely foolish to believe that the list of what requires age verification to access will not be expanded. The German chancellor is pushing for real names online — a very Zuckerberg...
Yeah, it's absolutely foolish to believe that the list of what requires age verification to access will not be expanded. The German chancellor is pushing for real names online — a very Zuckerberg stance. I expect we will also see more things be restricted or banned under extremism and anti-terrorism laws.
Also, I believe it was the wrong move to push for alternative app stores alone — people should be able to install mobile apps from websites the way we do desktop software. The internet is rapidly moving in the wrong direction.
I actually read through the full text of AB 1043 because I make Mac apps and had the same reaction. It’s a lot narrower than people are making it sound. The law doesn’t bake age verification into...
I actually read through the full text of AB 1043 because I make Mac apps and had the same reaction. It’s a lot narrower than people are making it sound.
The law doesn’t bake age verification into the OS the way people think. It requires Apple/Google to build an API that app stores use to pass an age bracket signal to developers. It’s scoped to “covered application stores” so if you distribute outside the App Store (direct download, GitHub, Homebrew, whatever) it doesn’t apply to you at all.
It also doesn’t block downloading apps or websites. There’s no filtering or gating, it’s just a data signal developers can request about whether a user is in a certain age bracket. It's literally just requiring the Steam "age verification" for everything.
That’s useful to know, thank you for looking into it. I do think it’s a bit of a slippery slope though, and especially as it’s (as I understand it it?) applied to Linux as well.
That’s useful to know, thank you for looking into it. I do think it’s a bit of a slippery slope though, and especially as it’s (as I understand it it?) applied to Linux as well.
Doesn't it require developers to request the data signal? You said "can request" as though it's optional, but in my reading it indicated it was mandated. So if you choose not to "opt" in to age...
Doesn't it require developers to request the data signal? You said "can request" as though it's optional, but in my reading it indicated it was mandated.
The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.
So if you choose not to "opt" in to age verification at the OS level (by using OS that do not comply for whatever reason), it's possible developers will be required to block you from accessing the app because they won't receive an age signal from you. This part is unclear and the bill does not specifically scope out this scenario.
A developer that receives a signal pursuant to this title shall be deemed to have actual knowledge of the age range of the user to whom that signal pertains across all platforms of the application and points of access of the application even if the developer willfully disregards the signal.
It doesn't say what happens if a developer doesn't receive a signal or if the developer is liable for not enforcing age restrictions if no signal is received.
It also doesn't block downloading apps or websites.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Developers are legally liable for children using their apps, so they will be compelled to block usage of them if there is an age signal indicating it's a minor or possibly if there's no age signal at all (unclear). If the distinction is that it doesn't block downloading but you can't use it because the developer will block usage of it, that distinction is worthless.
“Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application
It also can apply to websites that are facilitating the download of applications from third party developers. So how does that not apply to Github, SourceForge or other types of sites? You don't own Github, you're a 3rd party.
I would say it's semi-noteworthy that it does not scope out the circumstances of no signal received because it absolves various parties in some circumstances
This title does not impose liability on an operating system provider, a covered application store, or a developer that arises from the use of a device or application by a person who is not the user to whom a signal pertains.
An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.
So it absolves some of responsibility in certain scopes, but says nothing about the lack of a signal received.
Slightly cynical but I wonder if this could lead to a price spike in devices too old to get iOS 26, providing that they don't backport the check to older versions via a security update.
Slightly cynical but I wonder if this could lead to a price spike in devices too old to get iOS 26, providing that they don't backport the check to older versions via a security update.
To bring this back to a Heinlein quote that sticks with me:
To bring this back to a Heinlein quote that sticks with me:
How anybody expects a man to stay in business with every two-bit wowser in the country claiming a veto over what we can say and can't say and what we can show and what we can't show — it's enough to make you throw up. The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.
Alternative source for pay wall
Found this via Reddit. Looks like age verification is even getting baked in to the OS. It blocks downloading apps and even adult websites (source).
From what I understand in Colorado and California(!) they are introducing laws to bake age verification in desktop OS including Linux (reddit1,reddit2)
This direction of travel is rather concerning to me. The quite rapid moves to seize control over all computing technology does really concern me, especially as it seems to be an international effort to gain this control. Most people don’t seem to care and I doubt a political solution will be possible. Is anyone else concerned by this? I fundamentally believe privacy is required for a functioning democracy and these kind of moves would give an authoritarian government way too much control in the digital era.
That all of these age verification laws are appearing at roughly the same time globally is very strange. Not to sound conspiratorial, but the case for there being some central authority pushing for them is strong.
I figured it was because bots cant pass age verification and the entire internet is being overrun by bots and its affecting everyone
It's not a strong case at all, what are you talking about? There are many factors that could explain that other than national governments being directed by a "central authority", factors which are more persuasive and require no conspiracies at all.
To be clear, I was thinking something more along the lines of wealthy or otherwise politically powerful individuals lobbying for this kind of thing rather than anything more “out there”, but you may be right.
It just feels like a strange thing for so many governments of different levels to suddenly align on. Normally legislation is much more random and concerned with challenges unique to each jurisdiction.
To be fair, I suppose these challenges are more global than previously - the internet and the large American social platforms that define it these days are everywhere.
I think it's less complex than that. Governments are often scared to take the first step on something that seems politically unpopular. As soon as the first goes, the rest follows.
time to legally change your name to ButteredToast while retaining your former name socially.
Yeah, it's absolutely foolish to believe that the list of what requires age verification to access will not be expanded. The German chancellor is pushing for real names online — a very Zuckerberg stance. I expect we will also see more things be restricted or banned under extremism and anti-terrorism laws.
Also, I believe it was the wrong move to push for alternative app stores alone — people should be able to install mobile apps from websites the way we do desktop software. The internet is rapidly moving in the wrong direction.
I actually read through the full text of AB 1043 because I make Mac apps and had the same reaction. It’s a lot narrower than people are making it sound.
The law doesn’t bake age verification into the OS the way people think. It requires Apple/Google to build an API that app stores use to pass an age bracket signal to developers. It’s scoped to “covered application stores” so if you distribute outside the App Store (direct download, GitHub, Homebrew, whatever) it doesn’t apply to you at all.
It also doesn’t block downloading apps or websites. There’s no filtering or gating, it’s just a data signal developers can request about whether a user is in a certain age bracket. It's literally just requiring the Steam "age verification" for everything.
That’s useful to know, thank you for looking into it. I do think it’s a bit of a slippery slope though, and especially as it’s (as I understand it it?) applied to Linux as well.
I don't disagree!
Doesn't it require developers to request the data signal? You said "can request" as though it's optional, but in my reading it indicated it was mandated.
So if you choose not to "opt" in to age verification at the OS level (by using OS that do not comply for whatever reason), it's possible developers will be required to block you from accessing the app because they won't receive an age signal from you. This part is unclear and the bill does not specifically scope out this scenario.
It doesn't say what happens if a developer doesn't receive a signal or if the developer is liable for not enforcing age restrictions if no signal is received.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Developers are legally liable for children using their apps, so they will be compelled to block usage of them if there is an age signal indicating it's a minor or possibly if there's no age signal at all (unclear). If the distinction is that it doesn't block downloading but you can't use it because the developer will block usage of it, that distinction is worthless.
It also can apply to websites that are facilitating the download of applications from third party developers. So how does that not apply to Github, SourceForge or other types of sites? You don't own Github, you're a 3rd party.
I would say it's semi-noteworthy that it does not scope out the circumstances of no signal received because it absolves various parties in some circumstances
So it absolves some of responsibility in certain scopes, but says nothing about the lack of a signal received.
Slightly cynical but I wonder if this could lead to a price spike in devices too old to get iOS 26, providing that they don't backport the check to older versions via a security update.
To bring this back to a Heinlein quote that sticks with me:
Mirrors:
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/P3fW9
https://www.paywallskip.com/article?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2Ftech%2F884306%2Fapple-age-verification-uk-users-ios-26-4-beta
Here's a gift link