California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/california-lawmakers-unanimously-pass-linux-exemption-from-age-verification-law-software-distributed-under-the-gpl-mit-bsd-and-apache-licenses-are-exempt

California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law — software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are exempt

California's legislature has passed Assembly Bill 1856, exempting open-source operating systems from the State's Digital Age Assurance Act months before the law is due to take effect on January 1, 2027. The Senate amended the Bill on August 21 before passing it on the 26th in a 39-0 vote, with the Assembly then accepting these changes in a concurrence vote the following day. The amendment ends almost a year of uncertainty surrounding whether Linux distributions and SteamOS would be forced to collect user age data during account setup alongside Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android. AB 1856 has now been sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the original act into law last October.

These amendments redefine the term "operating system provider" to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application "under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software." Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test, which removes the likes of Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, and the BSD family from AB 1856's scope.

Age verification has been a topic that has been bubbling up over the past few years. Recently, California was working on legislation to require age verification in essentially all software. This raises concerns for many people as many view this as invasion of privacy as well as a way for governments to increase their reach into private lives as well as a way for governments to have a way of censoring speech.

Interestingly, it looks like some reasonable exceptions have been added, which would mean Linux and FOSS software like Simutrans would be exempt.

This is potentially good news for several reasons. Although I have seen some theorize that it may lead to problems if, say, websites are legally forced to deny access to requesting systems that do not provide age verification information.

Either way, I thought it was an interesting development in this issue and topic. And certainly directly affects Simutrans - a state like California has outsized influence over the rest of the US if for no other reason than the size of its population and markets; and the US like the EU (see GDPR) can have an outsized effect on everyone else as well.

[victor_18993]

Well, I'm really glad, blocking an OS with age verification makes no sense at all.

In the EU they never stop legislating on these issues, also regarding minors, etc..

Sometimes I think they go overboard with so much legislation, and yet they allow minors to access games that have paid content inside them and basically work like casinos where the house always wins. I think they should focus more on that type of pay-to-win game and review in-game purchases like clothes, etc., which kids really like and it ends up turning them into addicts, and just leave games that don't offer anything like that alone.

I'm glad to hear the news.

[isidoro]

I don't think this is good news.  There should be no identification in any system of any OS at all.  A computer is a tool.  If I don't identify myself to use a fork, why should I do that when using my computer?

The only reason behind this is to have a really bit potential market of data.  That's a very nice business and a very nice way to direct people's opinion, as it has already happened in the past.  The protection of children is just the excuse.  The parents or tutors are the ones that have to worry about what their children use or do.  Not any state in behalf of big companies.

I don't allow my children to play with oil, knives, etc.  It's my responsibility to watch that they do whatever is adequate for their age.

I only hope that the long lasting US tradition against the state and pro individual freedom puts this to an end, together with the Flock cameras issue, to name another similar question.

[victor_18993]

I agree with you that there shouldn't be any kind of verification for an OS, especially with the number of vulnerabilities being discovered these days in the handling of sensitive data.

But when it comes to controlling certain websites, video games with paid content, and adult or explicit content, I do think there should be some sort of restriction to protect them.

Although we've all been teenagers—and right now I'm going to contradict myself—we've all accessed adult websites (or at least most of us did as minors), we've drunk alcohol, etc.

What I'm not sure about is where they should draw the line and what kind of controls to apply; for example, the recording devices in smart glasses hitting the market worry me, not because they're inherently bad, but because I believe they can be heavily misused and used to record people or conversations that should be private.

The other issue is social media content, which has already been shown to be a real scourge for teenagers and adults alike. A very distorted image of reality is being pushed, along with the sale of unregulated products and unethical sponsorships; to me, this definitely seems like a total catastrophe and an assault on people's mental health that has zero regulation. And I don't even want to get into deeper issues like the medical advice handed out by two-bit influencers certified from their living rooms, because most of them have no training whatsoever to give that kind of advice, nor are there warnings about potential adverse effects. On that front, I really do hope the law tightens up and demands that content not be absolute garbage—so that if someone gives advice, they have to prove certified credentials and be held liable for damages if they cause harm to anyone.

In short, I demand a liability law for content broadcast on social media, just as content is regulated in traditional media. I don't want censorship, but I do want people to clearly be able to sue over content that has caused harm, especially content coming from brand sponsorships. Seeing licensed doctors giving advice like "take this vitamin"—when in Spain it's completely illegal to do that in a clinical consultation without prior tests—is appalling to say the least, and clearly shows that the legislation isn't up to standard.

As for the subject of American society, I don't think it's exclusive to them; in European society these patterns repeat themselves, and I don't think the solution is saying this society is better or worse.

Best regards.

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

US tradition against the state and pro individual freedom

Well, I have some bad news. At least, it is the Republicans that tend to claim to be those things, and the Republicans fall into line with the party message/beliefs pretty strongly. They claim to be for small government, but it's not actually true.