undefined | Better HN

0 pointsenoint11d ago0 comments

The GE smart wall oven could meet the definition. I’m genuinely unsure which way a judge would rule. For ovens which do not provide an App Store, I cannot tell what the intent of AB 1043 should be.

0 comments

dataflow10d ago

> The GE smart wall oven could meet the definition. I’m genuinely unsure which way a judge would rule.

> or ovens which do not provide an App Store, I cannot tell what the intent of AB 1043 should be.

- Does the oven have an "account setup" process?

- Does the phrase "the user of that device" make sense for this oven?

- Does "the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store" make sense for this oven?

- Does "to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal" seem relevant to this oven?

enointOP10d ago

Since there are no exceptions, I’m not sure if a judge will ask those.

One judge might look at an appliance with no screen or input and “nope” it quickly.

Another might decide that these OS designers should show more caution. And just because their distro supports ovens, it also supports Amazon Echo.

enointOP11d ago

For example, if GE assumes some risk and issues an OS update, then the oven will ask the users age. GE would at that point be capable of limiting functionality based on age. But the bill is not enforced against GE, but the OS maintainer.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse