Sarah Jamie LewisMar 5

RE: https://mastodon.social/@sarahjamielewis/116161459299855467

Something I want to make clear:

The "age verification" bit of the CA/CO laws are not the bit I care about i.e. a law that requires an operating systems to implement some kind of parental control feature is...whatever.

The bits I care about are the obligations on developers to call APIs and then that invocation being taken as evidence of knowledge.

Specifically, I think a -legal- requirement to:

- make any kind of call is an attack on speech
- know a users age (bracket) is a privacy violation

Show threadSarah Jamie LewisMar 5

The way I expect this to go down is that Android/iOS/etc. will roll out an age bracket API call in the near future and tie that API call to some set of foundational permissions (e.g. internet access / file access / etc) - they have done this in the past, notably for API deprecation.

A minimally invasive implementation of this will likely only restrict apps running if the OS itself is being run in a kids-mode .

(But that isn't what the laws actually require)

Show threadSarah Jamie LewisMar 5

It's a very, very short jump from "the law requires you to call this API to know a users age" to "the law requires you to call this API to backdoor the rng"

The precedent of the former makes me very uneasy.

I cannot in good conscious support software on any platform subject to a jurisdiction that mandates such calls.

(I also think making the existence of parental controls settings on an OS as mandatory is also a little iffy, but in a less catastrophic way)

Show threadSarah Jamie LewisMar 5

Where I think this will end up:

Most commercial providers has been to slowly merge their mobile & desktop operating systems.

Android / ChromeOS are blending together
Mac / iOS are blending together

Both are very app store focused.

I suspect that eventually both platforms will at some point make the age bracket API call a global mandatory requirement.

Windows and Linux distros will likely trend towards a restricted mode for under-18 users, where such an API is available but not required.

Show threadCassandrichMar 5
@sarahjamielewis Where "Linux distros" means Ubuntu? I can't imagine reputable, non capitalist distros being on board with this.
Show threadSarah Jamie LewisMar 5
@dalias Distros that are large enough to have a meaningful answer to the question "does there exist in a reasonable nexus under which we must assume liability under Californian or Coloradan state law (/however many other jurisdiction this legislation eventually pollutes into)"
Show threadCassandrichMar 5
@sarahjamielewis I would think it would largely be "distros aiming to be included preinstalled on consumer devices" because commerce is the only way they're going to get away with enforcing such a regulation. Otherwise it comes down to a "forced speech" issue.
Show threadSarah Jamie LewisMar 5
@dalias soliciting donations/ accepting funding/sponsorship / hosting conferences is also commercial activity.
Show threadCassandrich

@sarahjamielewis The power to regulate commercial activity itself and the ability to regulate and force speech by a party in materials they publish just because they also engage in commercial activity (which any person or org does) are radically different powers.

I think most of us are probably ok with the former but not the latter, and, if we still had rule of law here, US Constitutional law would agree.

Mar 5 at 9:07pmWeb