Age Verification Is Coming For Linux...

BBetter Stack
컴퓨터/소프트웨어경제 뉴스AI/미래기술

Transcript

00:00:00So apparently there's a new law from California that require Linux distros to need my age
00:00:04and tell my age to every application, and even worse, other laws are being made elsewhere
00:00:09to do the exact same thing. Like I expect Windows to violate my privacy when I install
00:00:13it, but not on Linux distro and I've seen so much confusion about what's happening
00:00:16at the moment, so let's dive in and see what's going on.
00:00:24Now I'm no legal eagle but here's the TLDR of what this law is. It's called the Digital
00:00:29Age Assurance Act and it comes into effect on January 1st, 2027. It says that operating
00:00:34system providers must prompt users to declare their birth date or age during an initial set
00:00:38up process and this information is then sorted into one of four age brackets. Under 13, 13
00:00:44to under 16, 16 to under 18 and 18 or older. Then the system must offer a real-time API
00:00:49that app developers can query whenever someone downloads or launches an application and this
00:00:54will return only the age bracket they're in, not their exact age. Penalties for non-compliance
00:00:59of this are $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and up to $7,500 per child
00:01:06for intentional violations. But here's the most important part and to
00:01:09me, the most absurd part. At the moment, this relies entirely on self reporting. There is
00:01:13no requirement for photo ID, facial recognition or biometric scans. Users simply just type
00:01:18in their age. Now I'm not a fan of any of those methods being used. It's an absolute violation
00:01:23of your privacy, but if you'll excuse me for a second, what the fuck is the point of this
00:01:27law? Do you think a 13 year old kid is going to be honest about their age? When I was 13,
00:01:32half of my accounts said that I was a hundred years old. Like what is the point of this law?
00:01:36We tried it before with social media and porn sites and now we have new laws requiring your
00:01:41ID to use them. So excuse me if I'm a little bit worried that that's exactly where this
00:01:45is going to head. It's just seemingly becoming clear that lawmakers in nearly every country
00:01:50are trying to strip away our privacy and hand it over to companies like Palantir. I mean
00:01:54similar laws are already being worked on in Colorado and New York and over in the EU and
00:01:58it's just always the same blanket excuse of protecting children because it's such an easy
00:02:03way to sell this and it's just so annoying. Even worse though, you can always tell these
00:02:07laws are written by people with no understanding of technology. They were clearly just thinking
00:02:11about Apple and Microsoft when they wrote this one as they define an operating system provider
00:02:16as any organization that develops licenses or controls the operating system software on
00:02:20a computer, mobile device or any other general purpose computing device. That means it includes
00:02:26basically everything. Every Linux distro, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, Fedora. It includes all of them.
00:02:32And one of the biggest issues with that, I mean there are so many, but first of all most
00:02:36of these have no account system. It is just a completely local user. There is no cloud
00:02:40account that needs to be signed into like there is with Apple and Microsoft. So how do you
00:02:44even begin to enforce this on these distros or even know that someone is using one of them?
00:02:48The distro maintainers don't know this information themselves as there is no cloud setup. Then
00:02:53there's also the fact that many of these distros are just maintained by indie developers and
00:02:57volunteers and there are no legal teams or no budgets. So who would we go after if there
00:03:01was a violation in one of these distros? Do you go after an individual developer and find
00:03:05him? Like no one thought about Linux when they wrote this law. And you can tell that by the
00:03:09fact that this law doesn't even exempt server-side Linux installations. So will every server,
00:03:15every VM and maybe even a container need to verify my age? What about my smart lightbulb
00:03:20that might have Linux installed on it to get it to work? What is the scope of this law?
00:03:24It's just absolutely absurd. And so far I've only spoken about the operating system side
00:03:28of things. If we take a look at the app side of things where developers are expected to
00:03:31query this API for the age bracket the user is in when someone installs or opens up their
00:03:37application, they actually define covered application store so broadly in this law that it can include
00:03:41command line package managers like apt or homebrew. So apparently every time I go to install a
00:03:46package, it's going to need to ask for my age from the API. Then the package itself when
00:03:50I run it is also going to need my age. Like this law is seemingly requiring every single
00:03:55app developer, every single app store and every single operating system to implement age verification.
00:04:02And that just seems a little bit insane to me. Now I could probably rant about this for
00:04:05a lot longer, but that's probably not healthy for me. So let's just take a look at what other
00:04:08Linux distros and operating systems have said about this law.
00:04:12One developer who contributes to the privacy focus kick secure and who nix projects actually
00:04:16posted a technical proposal to the Ubuntu developers mailing list. He proposed a new D bus interface
00:04:21that could be adopted by any Linux distribution. The idea is to store age data as root owned
00:04:26files that aren't readable by regular applications. So it only shares the bare minimum that the
00:04:31law requires. And it's actually a pretty privacy focused approach all things considered, but
00:04:35this was just a proposal and canonical. The company behind Ubuntu has been a little bit
00:04:40cautious here. The VP of engineering actually said that they're reviewing the legislation
00:04:44with their legal counsel and they have no concrete plans or how or even if they're going to implement
00:04:48a change. The other more severe approach that you could take though is the one that midnight
00:04:52BSD have. They've actually modified that license to exclude California users altogether until
00:04:57they have a better plan for this, which is kind of hilarious to me that there is now
00:05:01a license that specifically excludes California. Overall, this is just an incredibly annoying
00:05:06situation where the law is incredibly vague. It's technically illiterate and practically
00:05:10unenforceable on half of the things that it claims to cover. And it's just opening the
00:05:14door for way worse legislation in the future. So if you are from California, Colorado, or
00:05:19any other place where laws like this are being pushed, I highly recommend you find a way to
00:05:22contact your representative and try and get this fixed. Let me know what you think about
00:05:26this law in the comments down below or if I've gone a little bit crazy. And while you're down
00:05:30there, subscribe and as always, see you in the next one.

Key Takeaway

New age verification laws in California and beyond pose a significant technical and privacy threat to the Linux ecosystem due to vague definitions that fail to account for the decentralized nature of open-source software.

Highlights

The California Digital Age Assurance Act (effective Jan 1, 2027) requires OS providers to collect and share user age brackets with applications.

Data must be categorized into four specific brackets: under 13, 13-16, 16-18, and 18 or older, accessible via a real-time API.

Non-compliance carries heavy financial penalties of up to $7,500 per child for intentional violations, yet currently relies on easily bypassed self-reporting.

The law's broad definition of "operating system provider" inadvertently captures open-source Linux distributions, many of which lack the infrastructure to comply.

The definition of "covered application store" is so wide it could include command-line tools like 'apt' and 'homebrew', requiring age checks for every package installation.

Potential responses from the Linux community range from privacy-focused technical proposals for local age storage to outright banning California users via license changes.

Timeline

Introduction to the Digital Age Assurance Act

The speaker introduces a new California law that mandates operating system providers to prompt users for their birth date during setup. This data must be organized into four specific age brackets and shared with app developers through a real-time API. Failure to comply can result in massive fines ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 per affected child. The speaker expresses concern that while privacy violations are expected from Windows, seeing such mandates move toward Linux is alarming. This section establishes the legal framework and the immediate financial stakes for software distributors.

The Flaws of Self-Reporting and Privacy Risks

The speaker critiques the absurdity of the current law, which relies entirely on self-reporting without requiring photo ID or biometrics. He argues that children will simply lie about their age, much like they have on social media and adult websites for decades. There is a deep-seated fear that this 'soft' verification is merely a precursor to more invasive requirements like facial recognition or Palantir-style surveillance. The common justification of 'protecting children' is described as a convenient tool for politicians to erode digital privacy. This highlights the disconnect between the law's stated goals and its practical, privacy-eroding implementation.

Technical Illiteracy and the Impact on Linux

The video explains how the law's authors seemingly only considered giants like Apple and Microsoft, ignoring the unique structure of Linux. Because Linux distributions are often maintained by volunteers and lack centralized cloud accounts, enforcing age verification is practically impossible. The broad definition of 'operating system' could theoretically apply to everything from desktop Arch Linux to the software inside a smart lightbulb. The speaker questions who the state would even prosecute in the case of a community-driven project with no legal team or budget. This section emphasizes the 'technically illiterate' nature of the legislation and its potential to stifle indie development.

Scope Creep: App Stores and Command Line Tools

The discussion shifts to the application side, where 'covered application stores' are defined so broadly that they include command-line package managers. This means tools like 'apt' or 'homebrew' might be legally required to check a user's age via an API every time a package is installed. Furthermore, individual applications would also need to query this age data upon every launch, creating a massive technical burden for all developers. The speaker describes this level of integration as 'insane' and a fundamental shift in how software interacts with user data. It paints a picture of a future where even the simplest computing tasks require a background age check.

Community Responses and Legal Workarounds

In the final section, the speaker looks at how the Linux community is reacting, including a proposal for a privacy-focused D-Bus interface for Ubuntu. Some projects, like MidnightBSD, have taken a more radical approach by modifying their licenses to explicitly exclude users in California. Canonical remains cautious, reviewing the legislation with legal counsel without committing to specific changes yet. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to contact their representatives to fight against these vague and unenforceable laws. This wrap-up provides a call to action while illustrating the fractured and experimental ways the tech community is attempting to defend itself.

Community Posts

View all posts