• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Ignorant parents unwilling to monitor their kids or utilize already available tools to aid in preventing access to inappropriate material want devs to do so for them, ushering in a surveillance state.

  • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    2 days ago

    We don’t want kids downloading bad stuff.

    Then parents should keep an eye on their kids. Or just don’t give them full on access to the computer.

    I hate that politicians keep trying to invent technology to do a parents job.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Absolutely. While we’re at it, let’s repeal agegating smoking, driving, and drinking. The parents should keep an eye on their kids.

  • alonsohmtz@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Let me guess, none of them said this during their campaigns.

    Useful idiots only elect servants of the ruling class.

  • artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Go ahead. My OS belongs to me. It does what I say. If you want it to tell you I’m an adult, it will.

    • alonsohmtz@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not sure why dipshits keep voting for these stooges.

      Oh right, it’s because they’re dipshits.

  • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    A-ha. All for the sake of children. Guess what makes my butt hurt: there are still people who buy this. And many of them

  • Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Before I go full tin foil hat on this theory, I want to know how they plan on making it so the signal is sent client side without the client being able to fake the signal.

    Like, this sounds like something that any type of OS that allows you to install a program will be able to bypass quite easily either by always sending the adult signal or never sending the adult signal

    Like reading the bill, they explicitly forbid any type of personally identifying information being transferred. It sounds like it’s just a DOB check and if you say you are > 13 or whatever age they have it as it sends a signal.

    I’m happy it isn’t allowed to send PII but like at the same time, I feel like just having websites put an age check prompt up does the same thing

    • ramble81@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      So… you know how Battlefield 6 requires Secure Boot and TPM enabled, which just so happens to mean you can only use Windows 11? Yeah, they’ve been priming it for a while. Soon they’ll mandate that the browsers have hooks than can read the attestation of the system like Google’s Safety system on Android, and then sites won’t even load if it doesn’t pass.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        So I get what you’re going at, but I did want to add that secure boot doesn’t require Windows 11. And that the main issue with Battlefield 6 isn’t the fact that it has secure boot enabled because you can use Battlefield 6 on Linux with secure boot. The issue is it won’t pass the anti-cheat, which is Javolin if I remember correctly, breaks itself when in a Proton environment.

        Being said, I don’t think secure boot is the threat everyone thinks it is. Microsoft was originally not going to let alternative platforms be allowed on the secure boot environment. However, they started facing legal threats regarding it, including a potential ban in Australia and part of the EU stated they were looking into investigating it in regards to anti-trust, so they ended up caving to avoid having a judgment in court. I don’t foresee Microsoft going back to making it so they’re the only one allowed again,and if they do it’s almost certain they’ll be anti-trusted

        I can see the concern on a Google attestion style system, but I don’t ever foresee it getting that bad because people will just not use the system. The only reason it’s working somewhat well for Google is because it’s integrated into Android as a whole and practically forced upon developers if they want to use the existing integrity systems. Being said, I’ve only ever seen it in banking apps. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it on a website to website basis.

  • Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Iirc California had a similar proposal to this. I actually think it’s not a terrible idea at the core. It’s basically an API for parental controls. You set up a device (or account on a device) and say “this is a device for a kid” and that gets used for everything. It actually makes a lot of sense to do something in that direction. Part of the reason people are convinced something needs to be done is because managing parental controls across the different myriad services and apps is a labyrinth that tech savvy parents can barely navigate, and less savvy parents don’t stand a chance.