> Systems are required to ask the user for their age and just trust whatever they say

If you're going to do anything like this, this is the thing they actually get right. It removes the inconvenience, privacy invasion, forced use of corporate verifiers with perverse incentives, etc. Meanwhile if the user is actually a child then their age is set by their parent.

> Applications are required to query the system for the user's age range.

This is classic legislative stupidity. Applications are required to query the user's age range even if they contain no age-restricted content? Brilliant.

▲

ekr____ 9 hours ago | parent [-]

>> Systems are required to ask the user for their age and just trust whatever they say > > This is the thing they actually get right. It removes the inconvenience, privacy invasion, forced use of corporate verifiers with perverse incentives, etc. Meanwhile if the user is actually a child then their age is set by their parent.

Well, maybe. For instance, if a child buys their own device they could set the age to whatever they want.

>> Applications are required to query the system for the user's age range. > > This is classic legislative stupidity. Applications are required to query the user's age range even if they contain no age-restricted content? Brilliant.

Note that AB1043 doesn't actually impose much in the way of requirements about age restricted content. Rather, the way it works is that the developer is then assumed to have "actual knowledge" of the user's age (See 1798.501(b)(2)(A)) and then has to behave accordingly in other age-restricted contexts.

▲

lokar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I see it as fairly benign.

It requires the device/computer have a way to set the age. If you don't want to set your real age, that's fine. If you are a kid, your parent will probably have set it for you (it's really a feature for the parent, and they don't have to use it).

It then establishes that apps can know your age group, sufficient to comply with existing (and I suppose future) content age-restriction laws (where today they can dodge and say they did not know).

It's a pretty incremental step, and fairly minimal (in the range of all options proposed around the world). We can try it and see how it goes.

▲

AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> For instance, if a child buys their own device they could set the age to whatever they want.

If a child has the money to buy a device without the parent knowing about it then they could just buy a used device that has already been configured with an account or pay a high school senior to set one up on their new device.

> Rather, the way it works is that the developer is then assumed to have "actual knowledge" of the user's age (See 1798.501(b)(2)(A)) and then has to behave accordingly in other age-restricted contexts.

How is mkdir or python3 supposed to "behave accordingly in other age-restricted contexts"? And if the answer is that its behavior is entirely unmodified, why is it required to do something without effect?

Also, who is the "developer" of a thirty year old project with thousands of contributors and multiple forks? All of them? None of them? The last one to make a commit, even if they're outside the jurisdiction?

▲

ekr____ 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> > For instance, if a child buys their own device they could set the age to whatever they want.

> If a child has the money to buy a device without the parent knowing about it then they could just buy a used device that has already been configured with an account or pay a high school senior to set one up on their new device.

Yes, agreed. I'm just describing how it works.

> > Rather, the way it works is that the developer is then assumed to have "actual knowledge" of the user's age (See 1798.501(b)(2)(A)) and then has to behave accordingly in other age-restricted contexts.

>How is mkdir or python3 supposed to "behave accordingly in other age-restricted contexts"? And if the answer is that its behavior is entirely unmodified, why is it required to do something without effect?

I agree this is undesirable. See: https://educatedguesswork.org/posts/device-based-age-assuran...

> Also, who is the "developer" of a thirty year old project with thousands of contributors and multiple forks? All of them? None of them? The last one to make a commit, even if they're outside the jurisdiction?

This unspecified in the current text.

▲

cozzyd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A minor using python3 isn't allowed to import flask

▲

rickydroll 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One could interpret the age verification operation must run for every command executed in interactive or non-interactive mode.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It sounds like you want to automate the invisible purposeless no-op. Is that allowed?

▲

simion314 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> For instance, if a child buys their own device

Then the law can make it illegal to sell smartphones or computers to 12 years olds or we could just ask the parents to do a bit of work and ensure their children is not buying devices behind their backs.

The idea is to make it easy for responsible parents to give a device to their children and make it easy for legal websites to block minors from adult content. We can't get perfect results but good enough could shut upo the complainers and maybe we get them do things like educating parents on how to proceed when they gift a device to a child.