It defines operating system in the law. This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles. That’s it.
Enforcement applies as civil fines per-child usage. So no suppression of speech by banning distribution.
(Also it’s not age verification really, it’s just a prompt that asks for your age to share as a system API for apps from above app store, no verification required)
No, it doesn't.
It defines the following terms: "account holder", "age bracket data", "application", "child", "covered application store", "developer", "operating system provider", "signal", and "user".
> This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles.
Presumably, this based on reading the language that in the definition of "operating system developer", and then for some reason adding in "game consoles" (the actual language in both of those includes "a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing [device".
(I've also rarely seen such a poorly-crafted set of definitions; the definitions in the law are in several places logically inconsistent with the provisions in which they are applied, and in other places circular on their own or by way of mutual reference to other terms defined in the law, such that you cannot actually identify what the definitions include without first starting with knowledge of what they include.)
> "Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application
There is a reasonable argument that a linux distribution is, itself, a host application. This is clearly an argument against their intention... but makes perfect sense to me. With this argument, the law does not apply to pretty much any environment where the applications are scheduled and run by a supervising process, at least by my reading.
So I guess that excludes all windows apps and app stores.
Do you really think a pool of 12 people off the street is going to consider an embedded system, wi-fi router, or traffic light as an "operating system" under this law? Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
> Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
Not sure what having accounts or users “as a common sense member if the public would understand them” is relevant to since, to the extent having a “user” is relevant in the law, it to is defined (albeit both counterintuitively and circularly) in the law, and having an “account” isn’t relevant to the law at all.
The hope is that twelve of your peers will at least avoid being able to persecute you for political goals. I hope neither of us ever has to find out.
To dumb down "operating system" for normies, they're probably going to say something along the lines of "the software that makes your computer work.. like Windows." If it stays at that level, we'll have a specific, discrete definition in play.
A broader, equally correct definition could be "the software that makes technology work.. there's an operating system on your computer, your cell phone, your Alexa, and even your car." Then yes, some people will think of their Ring doorbell, the cash register at the coffee shop, and other embedded systems, even if they've never heard the word "embedded."
The definition that shows up will depend entirely on a) the context of the case and b) the savviness of the attorneys involved.
Not a bet I want to take.
Everything is a general purpose computer. Just look at how many things have been made to run doom. I haven't read the law specifically but if it actually does say this then that language is useless and means practically everything.
Laws are interpreted by people trained to fill in the blanks[1] with a best guess of the legislative body's intent. And the intent here seems pretty clear: to regulate computing devices that let end users easily install software from a centralized catalog.
[1] which we all do subconsciously in day-to-day speech, because all language is ultimately subjective
I guess Linux native games on GoG might be covered. All windows and wsl programs run in userspace compat layers. iOS might be covered. Snap, probably not (containers), AppImage? Maybe?
Nix, and brew? Probably not.
If people with power over you want to "selectively punish you" they don't need new laws.
And if you want perfectly proscriptive, defined laws in all situations with no "human interpretation" you're in the wrong universe, and may as well be shouting at clouds. The world, and especially human society and interactions, just doesn't follow strict definitions like that.
> “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device.
It’s definitely more vague that necessary, but I’d imagine courts would readily find automated software deployment by an adult or corporation does not constitute a child using the device. Especially if done for servers or a fleet. Because then it’s pretty obvious that a child is not the primary user of the computer nor the software. Even if that software is a server that involves childish activities (eg game servers).
But I’d imagine that Linux package managers associated with a desktop operating system provider would fall under this law. And that raises questions about the software distributed by said package managers.
What’s going to happen when there’s no UI, just a shell, and they pacman -S <mything>? This law is unconstitutional based on criteria of vagueness. If they want it to stick, they need to call out the commercial app stores of Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc where a credit card is attached. Otherwise it’s too vague a term unless they define “store”.
Android has associated app stores, therefore Linux must follow this at account setup ..
(I'm mostly hoping I'm just jesting here, that they'd surely not enforce it in this way, plus, who "provides" my Linux OS?)
In any event, it does seem like a very silly overreaching law, that should be highlighted, pointed out, and laughed at.
PS I have not read the law in question. I have read a PC Gamer article though, which is surely much the same.
It's not enough to adhere to the age signal:
> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.
> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.
Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise.
The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, that is why age verification systems are implemented that way: doing so minimizes liability for developers/providers and it's cheap.
This is true, but
> The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans,
This doesn’t follow. It says “if” the developer has clear reason, it doesn’t obligate the developer to collect additional information or build a profile.
I read this as - if you in the course of business come across evidence a user is under age, you can’t ignore it. For example - “you have to ban a user if they post comments saying they are actually underage”
As a developer, that is not the kind of liability I want to take on when I can just plug ID.me, or whatever, into my app and not worry if someone writes "im 12 lol" in a comment on my platform.
Seems to me this would include TVs, cars, smart devices, etc. The Colorado version of this bill excludes devices used for physical purchase, so your gas pumps and POS systems would be excluded in CO. But I didn’t see that in the CA bill.
They’re both overly broad, ill-considered, frankly terrible bills that make as much sense as putting your birthday into a brewery site or Steam. Enter your birthday and we trust you. Now do that for every single one of those 100 VMs you just deployed…
If the First Amendement is to prevent a government from letting you speak, shouldn’t that also concert a government from letting you hear that speech?
If so, then this seems to go against the Forst Amendment.
Sorry, Australian here so just speculating
Not yet, but it will be one day if it passes
