Irenes (many)2d ago

when Intel introduced a cpuid instruction, around 1998 or so

there was a debate on the Linux kernel mailing list as to whether Linux should provide a way to call that instruction

you know, because of its potential uses for surveillance and how that was sharply at odds with the idea of computers being owned by their users

Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
the resolution, at least for a while, was that Linux would implement an interface for programs to invoke the instruction, but would also add an interface that allows the user to instruct the kernel to lie and return a user-specified identifier instead
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
that was a reasonable approach, though it was only possible because cpuid did not have the force of law. that's how you resist surveillance through technology, when you have to.
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
we haven't followed up on it since then. we kind of suspect everyone forgot about cpui and some DRM patch in the 2010s quietly made it a "real" surveillance feature and nobody noticed, but ... who knows, you know?
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago

at any rate, it's really startling to us to see people complying in advance with this current wave of surveillance stuff

many of them are people we have ideological differences with, but we would have at least hoped that libertarians (in the modern, US-centric sense, not the historical one) would understand when someone is seeking to control them, and resist it

Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago

like, if you're not based in California, and are willing to say "people in California are prohibited from using this", this current law does not apply to you

and that would be the correct form of resistance, for the record

Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
the only reason anybody disagrees is that they're part of an organization that decided to make itself dependent on money, and losing money on a matter of principle feels impossible and unacceptable
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
this birth date stuff is ... you all understand that once your hands are in the handcuffs, the cuffs tighten, right? don't do this thing of finding specific ways the law is better than some alternatives and convincing yourself it'll be fine. people are fooling themselves on that count.
Show threadRho2d ago

@ireneista personally we are torn, the birthdate stuff is bad. legislating that any age verification need to trust the data provided by the adult responsible for the device does seem correct, vs giving up way more data to 3rd party services.

also os data version actually supports emancipated people under 18 who generally get fucked by society

Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
@rho it's important to understand this sort of thing as putting in place one piece of a system, on which other pieces can rely. it's not appropriate to say, well, clearly nobody will ever build anything oppressive that goes beyond the scope of the law, and clearly the courts will always interpret the law in the most favorable possible way. we don't know that, we don't know the future.
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
@rho we do agree that it's, like... it looks as if somebody at least tried to defer the worst aspects of it to a later bill, we're just highly skeptical that they succeeded. anyway, children are not property!!!! if disinformation on social media is a danger to society - and it is - then the specific social media features that actively promote its spread need to be illegal for anybody, and then we don't need surveillance
Show threadRho2d ago
@ireneista yes, we would say not just defer but disable the surveillance things happening elsewhere. in our opinion social media legislation is related but distantly to the specifics of age verification.
Show threadRho2d ago
@ireneista our state (colorado) is currently working on something similar to the california law but has pulled back a little after a lot of folks got in touch to say what a problem it would be for opensource specifically but community run things in general
Show threadIrenes (many)2d ago
@rho yes, we're tentatively hopeful there will be some sort of carve-out.... fingers crossed...
Show threadIrenes (many)
@rho we've been following the Colorado bill, though not closely. actually we were heavily focused on Washington state for a while and that's how the California one slipped past us :(
Mar 19 at 10:02pmWeb
Show threadJon1d ago

Yeah, I'm somewhat baffled why they didn't try to bring this OS-level signal approach to Washington this session, instead basing stuff on the Mississippi and Texas laws and doubling down on the "addictive feeds" silliness. It's exactly what you say, this approach seems relatively benign in the age verification spectrum, but it's laying the groundwork for the inevitable future tightening of the handcuffs.

@ireneista @rho