The CA/CO law is literally the government writing a law that says it shall be left to the parents but the device must give the parents the options they need.

▲

muyuu 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

it says that, but the action of hardening devices effectively contradicts what it says

to be charitable, let's say that it "enhances" parental controls by taking on some of that parental enforcement at the state level

▲

gzread 15 hours ago | parent [-]

What action do you mean?

▲

muyuu 15 hours ago | parent [-]

the action of forcing any sort of verification or certification on devices or operating systems

this is taking the parental control largely into their own hands

▲

gzread 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This law doesn't force any sort of verification or certification, so it's fine then?

▲

hellojesus 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does it effectively outlaw general computing for minors by requiring account holders to set up accounts for minors where account holders are defined as being 18+?

Im honestly not sure; but I could see that being the result of the law and companies like best buy disallowing minors from purchasing hardware with cash for fear of liability.

	▲	gzread 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, it doesn't.

▲

muyuu 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is obviously enforcement by proxy, trying to pretend otherwise is laughable but then again so is most of the shilling supporting this legislation

▲

gzread 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What is "enforcement by proxy" and how does it apply to this law?

▲

muyuu 8 hours ago | parent [-]

it is extremely simple

for instance, the government can effectively ban you from saying something they don't want you to say by forcing all companies that may provide any substantial platform to you to implement their code speech

that way they have enforced a ban on you by proxy

the same way they can verify/certify the id of people totally or partially when they go online, by forcing all vendors who provide the systems that you may use to go online to enforce it for them

and this law absolutely does that

	▲	gzread 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So how is mandating the existence of a parental controls feature that?

▲

jonathanstrange 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So these laws state that device makers need to ensure that there is at least one operating system with parental controls that the parents can install?

That would be fine for me but AFAIK that's not what these laws state.

	▲	gzread 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why is every device OK but every OS isn't?

▲

tstrimple 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've obviously read about how bad adult literacy in the US is, but I didn't realize how many "technologists" were impacted by it. The law is short and clear and doesn't involved attestation or age verification. Yet all these "hackers" claim it does just that. The reading comprehensions and critical thinking skills seem to match the national average.

▲

hellojesus 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I think most people here are extrapolating the intent behind this law, the triviality with which it can be bypassed by minor account holders, and what that means for the future. Once this law is in effect, it will be ineffectual. Minors that current don't know what VMs are, what live booting is, what keyloggers are, etc. will learn immediately once blog posts start circulating about bypass mechanisms. Parents will then go back to the legislature and say the law as-written sucks, and they will demand better laws, but the only way to get better is to force all devices to authenticate with the isp with a gov-issued id/token to prove the account is not a minor. But the only way to prevent even further workarounds like the OS lying is to force hardware based remote attlestation. And that means the death of general computing and the death of any anonymity.

▲

gzread 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Most laws are ineffectual. Kids can't drink alcohol but they still can; theft is illegal but I still got your car keys; murder is illegal but people still die. In this one, there's no punishment for bypass, just like there's no punishment for a kid who gets alcohol. Unlike the alcohol law this one doesn't even mandate the use of the child protection features - just their existence.

You know the simple fix to your problem is to mark VMs as adult only apps, anyway.

▲

hellojesus 9 hours ago | parent [-]

But what happens when a nefarious actor fills the void and publishes a root-kited VM and marks it as safe for children? These restrictions breed black markets that usually cause even more harm.

	▲	gzread 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Same as when a nefarious actor serves alcohol to a minor anyway: they get fined or arrested.