• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup

The good news is that age verification may exclude open source. Works for me since I rarely use closed source.

age verfication linux.jpeg
 

“SystemD Adds Optional 'birthDate' Field for Age Verification to JSON User Records​

EditorDavid 37 minutes ago		6
"The systemd project merged a pull request adding a new birthDate field to the JSON user records managed by userdb in response to the age verification laws of California, Colorado, and Brazil," reports the blog It's FOSS.

They note that the field "can only be set by administrators, not by users themselves" — it's the same record that already holds metadata like realName, emailAddress, and location:Lennart Poettering, the creator of systemd, has clarified that this change is "an optional field in the userdb JSON object. It's not a policy engine, not an API for apps. We just define the field, so that it's standardized iff people want to store the date there, but it's entirely optional. "

In simple words, this is something that adds a new, optional field that can then be used by other open source projects like xdg-desktop-portal to build age verification compliance on top of, without systemd itself doing anything with the data or making it mandatory to provide. A merge request asking for this change to be repealed was struck down by Lennart, who gave the above-mentioned reasoning behind this, and further noted that people were misunderstanding what systemd is trying to do here.
"It enforces zero policy," Poettering said. "It leaves that up for other parts of the system."”
 
erek said:

“SystemD Adds Optional 'birthDate' Field for Age Verification to JSON User Records​

EditorDavid 37 minutes ago		6
"The systemd project merged a pull request adding a new birthDate field to the JSON user records managed by userdb in response to the age verification laws of California, Colorado, and Brazil," reports the blog It's FOSS.

They note that the field "can only be set by administrators, not by users themselves" — it's the same record that already holds metadata like realName, emailAddress, and location:Lennart Poettering, the creator of systemd, has clarified that this change is "an optional field in the userdb JSON object. It's not a policy engine, not an API for apps. We just define the field, so that it's standardized iff people want to store the date there, but it's entirely optional. "

In simple words, this is something that adds a new, optional field that can then be used by other open source projects like xdg-desktop-portal to build age verification compliance on top of, without systemd itself doing anything with the data or making it mandatory to provide. A merge request asking for this change to be repealed was struck down by Lennart, who gave the above-mentioned reasoning behind this, and further noted that people were misunderstanding what systemd is trying to do here.
"It enforces zero policy," Poettering said. "It leaves that up for other parts of the system."”
Click to expand...
https://hardforum.com/threads/a-new...tion-at-account-setup.2046700/post-1046296768

Lots now talking about ditching any Linux distro that uses systemd...
 
There are already forks removing the "feature" from systemd/Arch.
Edit: oh, freeport was linked earlier in thread.
 
And exactly why Meta is pushing so hard for this

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c747x7gz249o

During his first-ever appearance before a jury in February, Meta's chairman and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, relied on his company's longstanding policy of not allowing users under the age of 13 on any of its platforms.

When presented with internal research and documents showing that Meta knew young children were in fact using its platforms, Zuckerberg said he "always wished" for faster progress to identify users under 13. He insisted the company had reached the "right place over time".
Click to expand...
 
Seems like Debian is taking this much more seriously. At least they hired a lawyer and are considering separating age verification for places that require it.

"Recent discussions have started around new age verification legislation that may affect free software operating systems. In particular, the California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), expected to take effect in 2027, raises questions about whether operating systems and package distribution mechanisms could be required to provide age-related information to applications. In parallel, a recently adopted law in Brazil appears to introduce similar requirements and is already in force, with initial interpretations suggesting it could apply to components such as package management tools. These developments are currently under discussion within Debian and other projects, and SPI has initiated efforts to obtain legal guidance. At this stage, the situation remains unclear, and further analysis is ongoing.

From a non-lawyer perspective, it is not yet clear how such regulations apply to a non-commercial, volunteer-driven project like Debian, which does not sell software and provides it in a highly decentralized way. It seems plausible that obligations, if any, may primarily affect redistributors or commercial entities building products on top of Debian. In such cases, Debian would as usual be open to contributions that help downstreams meet their requirements, while keeping such features optional and respecting the needs of users in other jurisdictions. However, this is an area where proper legal analysis is still required."
 
sfsuphysics said:
I'm reminded of the Samsung Magician software when you install it. "Are you a member of a European (GDPR country) or Brazil?"

"Are you a resident of Califoria, or..." click no
Click to expand...
Rather have that then be forced to install packages with age verification. If I can lie about my age then I can lie about my location. That way I'm not forced to install a systemD version that supports age verification.
 
I'm not pleased to announce that Windows 11's age verification is coming. It works like Discord where you need a webcam and either show your face or your ID. Don't have a webcam? Tough shit, you ain't using your computer. Also, copilot is doing all the work. Doesn't matter if you make an offline account either.

It's an April fools joke, but it looks real. At least, I think it's fake.

View: https://youtu.be/4380QhN4ncw?t=235
 
vegeta535 said:
What did you expec5? Once one state takes the first step the rest will follow.
Click to expand...
Once people are Ok with breaking the constitution, then what's to stop them from continuing? Wait 10 years and they'll require more to verify who you are before you can use your computer, and there's always that one guy who'll refer to this moment and claim we've lost our rights long time ago.
 
DukenukemX said:
Once people are Ok with breaking the constitution, then what's to stop them from continuing? Wait 10 years and they'll require more to verify who you are before you can use your computer, and there's always that one guy who'll refer to this moment and claim we've lost our rights long time ago.
Click to expand...
"That one guy" baffles me. When our freedoms have been eroded we should be digging our heels in and refusing to give ground, not walking away.
 
DukenukemX said:
Once people are Ok with breaking the constitution, then what's to stop them from continuing? Wait 10 years and they'll require more to verify who you are before you can use your computer, and there's always that one guy who'll refer to this moment and claim we've lost our rights long time ago.
Click to expand...
Now get a lawyer who can successfully argue that anonymity is a right in the Constitution. I'll wait...

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying arguing Constuitonality of it isnt going to work. I will say though some states, including California, so have digital rights involving the collecting of data which allows you to opt out, so perhaps that would be a better place to go.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Now get a lawyer who can successfully argue that anonymity is a right in the Constitution. I'll wait...
Click to expand...
That's a loaded statement right there. First off, that's admitting that this is tracking you. Secondly, this isn't about anonymity but freedom of speech. It could lead to breaking anonymity, which is what I fear. Thirdly, not being anonymous is breaking the First Amendment of the constitution. Not only that, but it was already tested in court with McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). Any good lawyer can just use that to argue their case.
I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying arguing Constuitonality of it isnt going to work.
Click to expand...
Why? Cause you said so? Constitution is above all laws. The only reason this law passes is because they know there's nobody who's going to fight them in court. The biggest detering is knowing that going to court is going to take a massive amount of money. Especially with this administration where breaking the constitution is now an Olympic sport.
 
Prince Valiant said:
"That one guy" baffles me. When our freedoms have been eroded we should be digging our heels in and refusing to give ground, not walking away.
Click to expand...
People don't have time for that, they are too busy feeding their lives into Social Media apps and getting virtual likes to boost their lack of self confidence...

And then throw in the attention span of a rock...this stuff hits the news, people get raged, and by next week they are back to talking about the latest episode of House Wives of [H] and "OMG did you see what happened"
 
MrGuvernment said:
People don't have time for that, they are too busy feeding their lives into Social Media apps and getting virtual likes to boost their lack of self confidence...

And then throw in the attention span of a rock...this stuff hits the news, people get raged, and by next week they are back to talking about the latest episode of House Wives of [H] and "OMG did you see what happened"
Click to expand...
That's how they hope this goes. If Joe Six pack even hears about this, he'll never think about again because "think of the children". The moment Microsoft and Apple asks for Joe's age then Joe won't even think twice. If anything, it's to remind all the people he meets how old he is. Even his Email which is joesixpack99@gmail.com has his birth year at the end, like a lot of people do. It's only a problem if Windows and MacOS asks for a photo or his ID, because then it's annoying and delays him using the sexbox.

The real battle is with open source OS's like Linux where the main reason people use Linux over Windows and MacOS is for privacy. Your average Linux user isn't going to shrug off a prompt to enter their age. This will absolutely divide the Linux community and may even kill off some distros. The fact this list is so divisive and very incomplete should tell you something. Comply with the law and hopefully your distro doesn't end up like TempleOS or fight it and hopefully you don't end up in court. I'm already thinking about EndeavorOS over CachyOS. They're both Arch based, so who cares?


View: https://youtu.be/7ciVKIm7bcg?si=CT8RTE1CYYRrq_ik
 
MrGuvernment said:
People don't have time for that, they are too busy feeding their lives into Social Media apps and getting virtual likes to boost their lack of self confidence...

And then throw in the attention span of a rock...this stuff hits the news, people get raged, and by next week they are back to talking about the latest episode of House Wives of [H] and "OMG did you see what happened"
Click to expand...
An unfortunate combination but true enough :(.
 
DukenukemX said:
That's a loaded statement right there. First off, that's admitting that this is tracking you. Secondly, this isn't about anonymity but freedom of speech. It could lead to breaking anonymity, which is what I fear. Thirdly, not being anonymous is breaking the First Amendment of the constitution. Not only that, but it was already tested in court with McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). Any good lawyer can just use that to argue their case.

Why? Cause you said so? Constitution is above all laws. The only reason this law passes is because they know there's nobody who's going to fight them in court. The biggest detering is knowing that going to court is going to take a massive amount of money. Especially with this administration where breaking the constitution is now an Olympic sport.
Click to expand...
But Freedom of speech does not apply to private companies, so is this where they can push something like this against companies, but not individuals, and thus said companies do need to enforce it, as the constitution would not come into play?
 
MrGuvernment said:
But Freedom of speech does not apply to private companies, so is this where they can push something like this against companies, but not individuals, and thus said companies do need to enforce it, as the constitution would not come into play?
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what you're pointing out? Nobody is blaming companies for this since they have to comply with the law. I'm not going after Microsoft, Google, and Apple for going along with age verification because their OS's are already a privacy risk. They could lobby against this but you'd never see them do that. I'm talking specifically about open source operating systems where it's been proven that source code is freedom of speech, and therefore open source is really freedom of speech. No government should have the power to determine how an open source OS should work. Technically, they shouldn't have the same power over corporations and their OS's, but whatever.
 
MrGuvernment said:
But Freedom of speech does not apply to private companies, so is this where they can push something like this against companies, but not individuals, and thus said companies do need to enforce it, as the constitution would not come into play?
Click to expand...
If companies do things at the behest of the government they can be considered an arm of the government for certain purposes, like this one.
 
Privacy gone decades ago? Can't escape spying online you say? In the UK the age verification system on iPhones has locked people into "child by default" mode. Mostly the elderly, because they don't have much of an online foot print. All you have to do is not have a credit card. Gee, I wonder why everyone wants an age verification system? Not only you can avoid to be tracked online, but you can do it by accident like the elderly do.

This is telling for a few things. One is that yes you can avoid being tracked online, and it doesn't take much. Two, buying an iPhone is still a mistake. Three, age verification is clearly tracking people, at least in the UK.
 
DukenukemX said:
Why? Cause you said so?
Click to expand...
No, not because I've said so, because there hasn't been any push back against this in any way. This is a lost cause. You're out in public "you have no expectation of privacy" is the rank and file explanation for why things like Flock cameras and other types of surveillance are ok, sure you have privacy advocates that do push back against that sort of thing, but nothing ever goes so far as the US Supreme Court. That McIntire case, the only reason it went as far as it did was because the guys speech was stifled, and the government who stifled it did so claiming you couldn't be anonymous while handing out election material. Cart before the horse, and all of that.
DukenukemX said:
Constitution is above all laws.
Click to expand...
That's where you're a bit mistaken, it's not that the Constitution is above all laws, it's the interpretation of the Constitution by 9 people set by various presidents as the US Supreme Court that is above all laws. Tell me there hasn't been a SCOTUS decision that left so many absolutely baffled beyond all belief? It doesn't happen often, thankfully, but it does happen, and hopefully someday a future court overrules those, e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson "Separate but equal" was perfectly fine, only until Brown v. Board of Education was that overturned as unconstitutional.
DukenukemX said:
The only reason this law passes is because they know there's nobody who's going to fight them in court. The biggest detering is knowing that going to court is going to take a massive amount of money.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that's the only reason, there are plenty of people who are happy to see this happen, and then there are others who are not happy to see it but don't see it as a violation of the Constitution. And yes, going to court is costly, but if places like the ACLU or EFF aren't going to fight it, it may say something about what they think they can do with it. Sure they don't like it, but they may not see anything inherently illegal about it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
No, not because I've said so, because there hasn't been any push back against this in any way. This is a lost cause.
Click to expand...
You mean besides the number of Linux distros that vowed to not implement this?
You're out in public "you have no expectation of privacy" is the rank and file explanation for why things like Flock cameras and other types of surveillance are ok,
Click to expand...
You must have missed the thread where I'm totally against Flock.
sure you have privacy advocates that do push back against that sort of thing, but nothing ever goes so far as the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Must have missed the part where the hatred for Flock has results in a number of towns removing them like Lynnwood, WA, Redmond, WA, Santa Cruz, CA, and Coralville, IA. It's only ignored because people don't know about them. It isn't a problem until Police come knocking at your door and accuse you of robbery. Also Brazilians are already trying to fight back with age verification.

View: https://youtu.be/Nt79mdQcoZc?si=OsVFWnFx78jr-Pig
That's where you're a bit mistaken, it's not that the Constitution is above all laws, it's the interpretation of the Constitution by 9 people set by various presidents as the US Supreme Court that is above all laws. Tell me there hasn't been a SCOTUS decision that left so many absolutely baffled beyond all belief? It doesn't happen often, thankfully, but it does happen, and hopefully someday a future court overrules those, e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson "Separate but equal" was perfectly fine, only until Brown v. Board of Education was that overturned as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
It's still unconstitutional. It's also against the Brazilian constitution.
I wouldn't say that's the only reason, there are plenty of people who are happy to see this happen, and then there are others who are not happy to see it but don't see it as a violation of the Constitution. And yes, going to court is costly, but if places like the ACLU or EFF aren't going to fight it, it may say something about what they think they can do with it. Sure they don't like it, but they may not see anything inherently illegal about it.
Click to expand...
Laws like these don't appear because people got together and thought of the children. Someone is spending money on this, like millions of dollars. Did you know OpenAI funded Parents & Kids Safe AI Coalition? Did anyone know Meta funded age verification? There doesn't exist a thing where randos get together to try and make the world a better place. Nobody would give them money and they'd therefore stop existing. These exist because companies like Meta funded it.
 

https://tboteproject.com/​

Age Verification Lobbying: Dark Money, Model Legislation & Institutional Capture​

How corporate lobbying, think tank infrastructure, competing model legislation, and obscured funding networks are shaping age verification policy across 45 states and Congress.
Click to expand...
 

"California and Colorado Age Verification Laws Get Open-Source OS Exemptions—SteamOS Enforcement Still Likely​

by Cpt.Jank Yesterday, 19:55 Discuss (1 Comment)
Amid the controversy about the upcoming California and Colorado age verification laws, System76 CEO, Carl Richell, revealed that he was meeting with lawmakers to champion exemptions that would allow open-source operating systems, like Linux distributions, to forego the inclusion of such age verification systems. As reported by GamingOnLinux, Article 30 of Colorado Senate Bill 26-051, now available online in its final form, now states that the article does not apply to "an operating system provider or developer that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software without any platform-imposed technical or contractual restrictions imposed by the provider or developer on installing all modified versions."

For its part, the California Digital Age Assurance Act, bill AB 1856, now contains similar verbiage relating to open-source OS providers, except California excludes open-source developers from the bill entirely. A recent amendment to the bill reads: "'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." These exemptions functionally mean that most Linux distributions will not require users to submit information for age verifications, although the water gets a bit murkier with dual-license distributions, like SteamOS. In the case of SteamOS, although the underlying Arch Linux-based distribution is open-source and exempt, the included Steam Client is still a proprietary app store that will likely require age data. Notably there does not seem to be an exception in the California bill for open-source or similarly licensed browsers, which means open-source browsers, like Firefox and Chromium, may still need to build in support to request the signal for age attestation from the operating system."
 
MrGuvernment said:
And so it begins.....This will just for now be like when Steam asks you to enter your DoB to view a game.. no actual check...just something to cover their butt, but you know next they will push for integration into actual verification, and Microsoft will probably go ahead, do it, force down Home Users first.....

I wonder how the government of California plans to enforce it?​

Click to expand...

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


AB 1856 excludes open-source operating systems from the upcoming Digital Age Assurance Act.


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.
A second exclusion removes software components that aren’t “offered to consumers as a stand-alone executable application through a covered application store” from the law’s definition of an application, covering libraries and dependencies distributed through package managers like apt and pacman. AB 1856 doesn’t explicitly say that repos aren’t app stores, but a store’s main obligation under the law is to request an age signal from the user’s OS provider and pass it to developers; an exempt open-source OS produces no signal. A third carve-out excludes storefronts distributing extensions or add-ons that run exclusively inside a host application, which takes browser extension stores out of scope."

https://www.tomshardware.com/softwa...he-gpl-mit-bsd-and-apache-licenses-are-exempt
 
Weird time to exempt Linux when the law itself is ready to be thrown out.

"The brief also argues that certain provisions of the AADCA, if stripped of their unconstitutionally vague terms, would be constitutional privacy-protective regulations and cautions the court to avoid a holding that would endanger the constitutionality of properly drafted consumer privacy protections. In this way, the appeals court will be able to strike down a statute that presents significant dangers to free expression while preserving future authority to create properly crafted privacy laws."
 
erek said:

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


AB 1856 excludes open-source operating systems from the upcoming Digital Age Assurance Act.


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.
A second exclusion removes software components that aren’t “offered to consumers as a stand-alone executable application through a covered application store” from the law’s definition of an application, covering libraries and dependencies distributed through package managers like apt and pacman. AB 1856 doesn’t explicitly say that repos aren’t app stores, but a store’s main obligation under the law is to request an age signal from the user’s OS provider and pass it to developers; an exempt open-source OS produces no signal. A third carve-out excludes storefronts distributing extensions or add-ons that run exclusively inside a host application, which takes browser extension stores out of scope."

https://www.tomshardware.com/softwa...he-gpl-mit-bsd-and-apache-licenses-are-exempt
Click to expand...
Not to be cynical here, but how many legislators actually understand these issues well enough to write amendments to the original law. What I'm leading up to is that lobbyists probably wrote the draft bill and then passed that along to lawmakers.
 
philb2 said:
Not to be cynical here, but how many legislators actually understand these issues well enough to write amendments to the original law. What I'm leading up to is that lobbyists probably wrote the draft bill and then passed that along to lawmakers.
Click to expand...
Replying to myself, does that mean that Apple and Microsoft will open source their OS's? Not bloody likely, but I had to ask.
 
Fortunately, Linux doesn't need to comply. Instead, distros can geo-block entire California, and keep serving everyone else. It's not like it's going to lose a sale over it :D
 
philb2 said:
Not to be cynical here, but how many legislators actually understand these issues well enough to write amendments to the original law. What I'm leading up to is that lobbyists probably wrote the draft bill and then passed that along to lawmakers.
Click to expand...

“California's Age Verification Bill Passes with Linux Exemption Intact​

EditorDavid 2 hours ago		12
California's age-verification bill has passed in its legislature — but with its open-source carve-out intact, reports the blog Linuxiac: Back in May, we reported that California lawmakers amended Assembly Bill 1856 to carve open-source operating systems out of the state's upcoming age verification requirements. Three months later, that exemption survived the legislative process intact, and the bill has cleared both chambers of the California Legislature... sending the measure to Engrossing and Enrolling, the final legislative preparation stage before it can be presented to Governor Gavin Newsom...

For operating systems that are covered, AB 1856 builds on California's Digital Age Assurance Act, which is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. Under the current text, when an operating system runs on a device and includes an account setup feature, its provider must offer an interface that asks the account holder for the birth date, age, or both, of the device's primary user during account setup. The operating system must then be capable of providing a digital age signal to covered application stores and application developers through a reasonably consistent real-time API. Instead of exposing a precise birth date, the signal identifies one of four age ranges: under 13, 13 through 15, 16 through 17, or 18 and older... Covered application stores must request the signal from the operating system and make it available to developers.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top