37
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
37 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
83067 readers
865 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They don't care. They want your face, retina, fingerprints, DNA. All for their LLMs and so they can sell you something else.
Also to blackmail you later if they think they can or just feel like it... because they will put all that shit on an insecure server and some 13 year old hacker in Turkmenistan will leak it and make a killing (literally and figuratively) with it.
FYI, I am not a lawyer.
Have you actually read the bill itself? Nowhere in it does it mention any of the things that you mentioned. It doesn't even mention ID cards at all.
What it does say is operating system providers shall "Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device". What we should look out for is that the law does not forbid OS providers from requiring IDs.
It does however require that OS providers "Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title." (emphasis mine)
I wonder how much this is news outlets overreacting to a proposed bill that is not actually that bad, or if this is some marketing against the bill by some Corp.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
So everyone's windows OS will be registered to Mike Hunt born 1/1/1970. Gotcha
What do you mean, that's horrible on its own. None of this information should be necessary to run a computer. The computer shouldn't have to process this locally, let alone be mandated to upload it to someone's server.
Age verification is identity collection.
No, it is bad.
Suppose it's used to verify your age when visiting Pornhub. How is Pornhub going to trust the user's computer didn't lie about the user's age? A "just trust me bro" sent by the browser isn't going to suffice; teenagers would find a way around that.
Thr attestation will have to be cryptographically signed by some trusted party—and that's either going to be the government, or the operating system vendor.
If it's the government holding the signing keys: the website can now verify that you're a resident of $state in $country and use that for fingerprinting and targeted advertising. And what if your country doesn't participate, or if Pornhub doesn't trust the signing keys used by the government of Estonia? Tough shit, no porn for you! It would be impractical to manage all those keys, though, so why not instead leave it up to the operating system vendor?
If it is left the operating system vendor, it's going to end up being exactly the same as Google Play Service's SafetyNet "feature". If you're not using an approved operating system (a.k.a. Windows, MacOS, stock Android, iOS) you're not visiting Pornhub. Or a banking app. Or applying for jobs. Etc.
This bill is a poison pill for device ownership and FOSS operating systems being handed to corporations on a silver platter.
How about "fuck off."
It saddens me that someone who is willing to stand so strongly against an oppressive law would work to discourage discussion about those laws on free social platforms.
I hope you can consider your words next time and we can enter into a good faith discussion over the merits and demerits of any law.
Sorry. Mea Culpa. I was expressing my frustration with the spirit of the law, making discussion about the details of the law moot. My comment was directed at the contents you posted, not at you for posting them.
wrose yet blackmail you with their ai created child pron.