The reality is that many people want bad laws. Without the support of those people one does not get elected.
This use of people for power while de-facto disenfranchising them is pretty widespread already. For instance, some half of California and Texas are responsible for their strength in the electoral college while simultaneously being entirely disenfranchised when electing the President. Good technique.
"Protect the children" is the most common refrain of fascists across the political spectrum. It's used, uncritically, to attack your rights, to take away your power, with a fragile appeal to morality. Just like the war on terror. And the war on drugs. And the war on poverty. Funny how all of these efforts have failed while increasing government interference in our lives. We never get the rights back, and we don't improve the situations on any of the above.
A reminder that the fear mongering around children is just that. It is the safest time for children in history: https://www.chadaldeman.com/p/the-world-is-safer-than-ever-s... https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/trends-child-victimization
> Provide an ACCESSIBLE interface, at account setup,..
I wonder if the biggest effect of this bill will be that proprietary operating systems will have to have accessibility features built-in, and will be subject to ADA compliance lawsuits if it's deficient in some way.
> software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are exempt
> a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software
which at least doesn't choose specific winners and losers among licenses. It does disfavor license-free and public domain software, which isn't great.
Public domain software is free to "copy, redistribute, and modify", so ... where's the disfavour?
The problem is our legal system is still based on the waterfall method. Lawmakers try to plan for everything, laws meant to solve one problem face feature creep and create a thousand others, then no one wants to touch anything after launch for fear of making things worse or because that one guy uses the temperature of his CPU as a quick-key and refuses to change his workflow.
Anyways, no law is perfect and never will be, and neither are the fixes.
Or is the idea that the Linux store is not allowed to sell cigarettes anymore?
(PS. I'd hope we were past trying to hamfist physical metaphors to describe the digital landscape. But alas).
Are the gore websites gonna have to ask for ID now? What about 4chan? Or is the whole point to get rid of all that stuff and just get everyone using Facebook instead? (They're the ones who pushed these laws right?)
I'm honestly trying to understand what the big picture is here.
Most governments are huge, highly political, slow moving organisations. It seems to just come with the territory: slower rollout of changes, longer periods to observe the changes in the wild (throw in a few years to see how the law plays in legal cases/challenges), and suddenly you have fewer iterations to get it right.
It's not? It has been "agile" for centuries. It is constantly patched as someone wants to address some issue. It's rather rare for a completely new law to be written.
> Lawmakers try to plan for everything
It's not? They see one bug, e.g. children being exploited, now they tried it with a patch that is horribly broken and doesn't really work, so they patched it again, to remediate one issue, while they try to figure out more patches.
Unfortunately the “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is completely wrong in politics. In politics and lawmaking, always attribute to malice, not stupidity.
Lawmakers appears extremely dumb on TV for the most part, but the teams behind them are actually very smart (pure evil, but smart). All the loopholes and bugs in laws are, to them, a feature. It allows them to always prosecute regular citizens, but the favored people (politicians, campaign contributors, oligarchs) always have a free pass. This is by design.
The original issue with the law was never that those poor open source developers were going to have to bear the burden of complying with the law, but that the law itself was a bald-faced invasion of privacy by an overbearing troupe of people in power (i.e., government) so shit-sure of their superiority over the simple common folk they govern (i.e., you and me) that they aren't even embarrassed by their own arrogance.
I would suggest that what "we wanted" is no such law at all. What would be weird, and worthy of comment, is if those of us that complain about government were actually satisfied by an exemption which only applies to pretty damn tiny slice of the market. If anything, that wasn't a victory for privacy or common sense, but rather a concession that they had foolishly created a law that they wouldn't have been able to enforce as broadly as they thought they could get away with... or if they tried to enforce it they'd have to contend with the optics of the big hand of government yet again crushing individuals whose only real crime was their altruism rather than just some giant corporation.
So it isn't weird at all that "we're" silent. This isn't a win. Pointing out that the law had unintended consequences, including with Linux, et al., wasn't a statement of objective but rather a simple show that the law was rife with thoughtless unintended, or perhaps simply unspoken, consequences. The legislature's act here didn't restore privacy nor did it remove bad outcomes: if anything it now just raises questions about equal protection under law, at least on some practical level. It raises the question why some users of computers need such protections as age verification and others don't, and why the licensing terms of the OS are a valid proxy for that need... taking for granted that the stated purposes of the law are the real ones, of course.
This is not a good thing, it's a very small patch for a very bad thing.
Is this serious or sarcasm? They passed a horrible law, now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce. So, you know. Why legislate it?
There isn't much of an angle here that reflects well on Californian lawmakers, they're still supporting this authoritarian trend of de-anonymisation and rolling back free communication on the internet. They're just going to come back for linux later once the idea of legally mandated PII on account registration is normalised. Although I do see this "In addition, lawmakers inserted a new provision prohibiting anyone from requesting an age signal from an OS provider or app store unless required by law" so we seem to be entering a wild space where they're going to try and micromanage this in a weird way.
On the other hand a public domain dedication is a binding term that gives you permission (or license) to do what you want...
That's how it should work on paper anyway...
Law is not an abstract code, but an incremental sometimes futile approach to shape society. They only want a way to hold big corporations accountable to exploiting children. They don't actually intend the effects on the consumer, so they tried to fix on easily changeable effect: "Don't worsen the privacy for people who want it." If you are using e.g. MS Windows, you have given up everything already. They do a lot of "telemetry" and for example everything you typed into MS Word is already licensed to Microsoft.
Seriously, what is the message here supposed to be about the kids using linux? And why are they so different from kids using Windows or Mac? Are there other safety features we can exempt kid linux users from?
There is a sysadmin (likely the parent), whose responsibility is that already.
Let me know when they pass actual laws tackling that, then. Even if this law was ironclad, this does not solve the simple factor of using a "verified" device.
You don't fix a problem of society from private corporations by restricting society. You need to actually attack the corporations itself. But governments are sheepish to go after "their own", or people who can bribe them into feeling like one of them.
It's not a great implementation either. But COPPA is an example in the right direction and made companies need to change their algorithms based on the user account's reported age. That's more of the direction to move in.
And most techies are already primarily on Linux and its derivatives.
Would always install some variant, think it was "pretty cool" for a few days, then revert back to "whatever MacOS was offering" (for my daily driver).
----
2026: I just finished building my third Ubuntu Linux machine, this year (gave the first one to my brother). An Ubuntu running a 5070Ti is now my main operating system.
The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux. Android will still be allowed, GrapheneOS probably not.
They made it sound like it, but this is not a victory at all, this is a temporary strategic compromise to silence the most sensitive/foreseen privacy advocator for now. But they will not stop here, instead they'll keep advancing the mechanisms, opinions and laws, so one day when the pieces aligned, they can come back to turn this tap off while having people lied to their side.
Forced age verification needs to be abolished completely and people who advocated for it punished to the point that their political career ends, this should be the baseline.
But of course, based on my understanding of everything, no, nobody will do anything effective against it. Everyone will just be "Yeah... they forced a component on my system that could act as spyware to monitor me, then have me pay for it without give me any control. But guess what, I will accept it because they said it's good for the future of mankind", like a peasant would. This is the tax you paid ended up for you, you know?
E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
I am wondering how much this could hobble GrapheneOS...
I find it hard to believe these people would just create a huge loophole for only smart kids to get through rather easily.
Explain how a privacy that protects you and me will somehow not protect a pedophile. How does that work?
I am FOR privacy. I don't think it can be done.
I do not want to have any information at all stored anywhere, encrypted, decentralized or otherwise. Nada. Its just text. I want to just be a number in everyone database. I want to be able to spawn millions of numbers that will never be related to each other. My ideal privacy world is a world where bots thrive.
Just go to face to face discussion if you care so much about who you are talking to.
I think that it will, and that's okay. The US Bill of Rights necessarily protects criminals as well as innocents. "The optimal amount of [crime] is non-zero." (https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...)
Or also BSD, ReactOS, hobby OS #24562 etc... ?
From TFA
> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test, which removes the likes of Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, and the BSD family from AB 1856’s scope.
The article then explicitly cite "Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, and the BSD family".
There is also another exclusion for libraries and software from a packages managers like apt and pacman.
So from my understanding ReactOS, hobby OS but also CP/M, FreeDOS, Haiku or Collapse OS...
Lawmakers unanimously are going to be sleeping when it gets dark at night.
"Everything already tracks you anyway, so what's one more thing?"
which technically makes California a "Nanny state"
Where does MacOS and iOS fit then? The core of both those operating systems (darwin) is open source (APSL licensed).
A project like PureDarwin, however, can be freely distributed because it omits Apple's proprietary parts.
This law describes as a true-false something that is not only true or false. This law is poorly written. Amending it didn’t fix that.
I can copy and redistribute macOS binaries, and I can write programs/extensions that modify macOS.
These vague terms show that legislators are incapable of regulating software effectively; but they do create an enduring legal franchise to deal with their confusion.
> No Reverse Engineering. You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License or by the Usage Rules if they are applicable to you), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components that may be included with the Apple Software).
The “under license terms…” is a pretty important clause you omitted here.
And then further into the text it's clarified that there also isn't a specific list of open licenses, as the terrible headline would have you believe, but instead a description of what is considered open
With the caveat that I haven't read the actual legal text, this seems to be an eminently sensible law (it'd be better if it weren't needed, but here we are).
In summary: not a Linux exemption, and not an exemption for a specific list of licenses either.
This law was never going to succeed at those aims.
" third carve-out excludes storefronts distributing extensions or add-ons that run exclusively inside a host application, which takes browser extension stores out of scope."
A court at a later time may find that this situation is unfair to windows users who have to submit to age sniffing. So this will easily be overturned at a later time - age sniffing will never be given up by the lobbyists groups paid for by Meta and others (and the USA also wants that information).
So really, both concepts can mesh.
After all, once compliant an adult is then not restricted.
Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When setting up the account for the first time, the parents could set the account to be an "underage one", all the apps, browsers, etc., would get the USER_IS_UNDERAGE flag and filter content according to that. No need for every site to ask and verify the age, just set the date of birth at the time of purchase, set a parental password (for possible future changes, reselling, etc.) and prohibit formats/wipes/factory resets without a parental password being entered. The clerks in telco stores could even help with the first setup of that.
Same could be easily implemented in linux, via some user flag set by the su/sudo user during the first eg. ubuntu install.
Think about it - if every phone you got asked you at first config "are you over 18? If not ask a parent to set up this device" then everyone would know about that capability and "think of the children" would be met with "parents can just click a button"...
* https://www.apple.com/uk/child-safety/
* https://families.google/familylink/
* https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/family-safety
If (some) parents actually parented instead of abdicating that role to the state/education system then this tripe would get far less traction - though cynically they'd just switch to the other argument they always trot out.
https://commandlinux.com/statistics/linux-kernel-contributor...
I take it that you wouldn't be OK with somebody building a uranium enrichment facility in their backyard for their hobby reactor. So there is a line to be drawn on where people's freedom to tinker ends; it's just a question of where you draw it.
Personally, I think given there is an actual documented, non-isolated problem with 3D printed guns being used for violent crime, there's a debate to be had that's more sophisticated than "REGULATION BAD".
Making actual firearms from steel is trivial. In fact you can look up Kalashnikov designs online and then replicate it with a relatively simple mill/lathe/tapping setup.
It’s like trying to ban wrenches.
Lever and tube - that’s what it is. People create makeshift ones even when it’s legal to buy them, because it’s cheap and easy to do so.
You can’t ban computers or personal transportation or words either.
You can’t even ban a person from a website. You can ban an account - but you haven’t stopped the person. Any attempt at playing arbitrary authority you’re gonna lose
You don’t seem to have a good grasp of the topic but already decided the opposition position is „regulation bad“, but that’s not the case at all. The pushback comes from introducing the government as middleman between your slicer and 3d printer, that’s dystopic af
Your analogy fails in that yes, you are not allowed to make hobby reactor. But that's because you are not allowed to have any kind of reactor at all.
Banning 3d-printed guns while not banning real guns (which are order of magnitude more effective) makes no sense.
3D-printed "guns" become a real issue when you combine it with unregulated sale of firearm parts and ammunition. To get a fully-functional gun you just need to 3D print a fairly trivial component which is legally considered the entire gun as it carries the serial number. But that's not a 3D printing problem, because there are also companies selling that same part in a mostly-finished legally-not-a-gun form, together with a drilling jig guiding you how to drill the last few holes with a regular Dremel. And nobody is proposing banning Dremels. Heck, it is totally okay to own a lathe - which you can use to make your own high-quality guns!
And the entire discussion is of course pointless once you realize that this is the USA, so anyone is only a weekend road trip away from legally and fully-anonymously buying a gun two states over. If 3D-printed guns are such a huge problem, why aren't we seeing European countries mass-banning 3D printers?
To extend your analogy: it's like being fine with the sale of ultracentrifuges and uranium hexafluoride, then getting upset at someone selling a screwdriver to attach the plug to the power cord of the ultracentrifuge because "screwdrivers lead to nuclear bombs".
3D printed guns are a nothingburger. There is indeed a non-zero number of violent crimes committed with them - but there is also a non-zero number of violent crimes committed with shoelaces, so that's clearly not enough of a reason to ban them. It only makes sense to regulate them if they are involved in a significant number of crimes and leading to a huge increase in gun violence - and at that point you probably want to crack down on all forms of DIY guns instead of just the 3D printed ones. But that's simply not the case, so the regulation is pointless and doing more harm than good.
Congrats, you built a zipgun.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63198715
There's now much more of a debate that's to be more sophisticated than "3D PRINTED GUNS BAD".
• 2012: <https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-w...>
• 2003: <https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>
• 1997: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html.en>
To be honest, as someone familiar mostly with computers, I have no idea where to start with this and it sounds a bit intimidating. Buying a 3D printer and using some 3rd party design sound very easy in comparison.
You're certainly right that it's possible for someone determined to make their own firearm, but raising the bar still has immense value.
Tradeoffs between freedom and safety are another, unrelated discussion.
This would be an unconstitutional law, per Bruen.
I read the discussion and thought "yeah that's nerd talk, just not about analogue synthesizers, old Landrover gearboxes, or Pascal compilers".
I guess the reason for blocking 3D printers from making gun parts is because it's easier than doing it "by hand". All you really need to do is get a copy of the files from someone who has them, print it out in something suitable, and you have viable gun components with very little "real work" involved.
By contrast here in the UK, where it's quite surprising what you're allowed to own and operate if you comply with the laws (here you're allowed fully automatic weapons, if you keep them at a suitable shooting range and don't try to wander around town with them, and you're not oh maybe a convicted violent criminal for example) one of my late father's friends was a gunsmith. My dad was an excellent machinist, and so he made some components for his friend, and I remember standing in the machine shop where they worked while he turned a chamber for a gun his colleague was building in the lathe. "There you go," he said, taking it out of the chuck, "that's legal".
Then he took it over to the mill, and cut a couple of holes and slots that would allow it to actually function as a chamber, "And there - now it's *illegal*."
Then, as he handed it to his friend, who was licensed to have "home made" gun parts, to stamp his initials on, "And now it's legal again."
Of course since people aren't allowed to just walk around with handguns since the school shooting, it's all a little more difficult - but the police will tell you what you need to do to keep it legal.
It's still slightly easier to get a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence here.
I think you're overstating this. My understanding is that here in GB (unsure about NI) fully automatic firearms are absolutely prohibited with only limited exceptions that the general public are typically ineligible for. Could you elaborate?
I agree the bar is a lot higher for those projects than massive corporations, but I think it's a pretty arguable case that "people are using 3D printers to make guns with features that would otherwise be illegal, and they are being used in crimes in some number" clears that bar.
What's next, keep track of all printed parts and invent the math to recombine them in every way possible to see if it could form a gun? Trivially defeated by using multiple printers. Hmmm, sounds like a good reason to force everyone to register their 3D printer with their real identity, and only allow a print after the model has been uploaded to the Federal Printing Database for verification...
It’s so ridiculously easy to assemble a 3d printer from individually sourced parts, and find some open source firmware to run it. How is this going to stop anyone who’s dishonest and slightly motivated?
What’s next is thinking about guns is a thought crime.
There’s a cynical part of me that sees this as having nothing to do with guns. Technology used to empower people. You can do anything with a computer running Linux, you used to be able to go anywhere on the web and do anything you like. There’s wasn’t a curated experience, a whitelist of apps. This is a bad thing for people who want to control and manipulate. They want us to mindlessly use our closed of devices that only show us what they want us to see and do what they approve. 3d printers can’t be allowed in such a world.
Dunno, because most europeans are way more responsible with their guns than many people in the US?
For example in the EU (and in Switzerland) before you can buy a gun, you get specific training about safe and responsible handling. And in many countries the cops shall come to your place and verify that you've got a gun safe and a separate safe for the ammo.
And we don't offer AR-15 to our kids when they turn 14 y/o (well I say that but my daughter wants to shoot my weapons and, once she turns 14, she can switch from air rifles to the real thing as long as she's accompanied).
Just to be clear: we have shitloads of guns and ammos in Europe. There's even one EU country with concealed carry. I think it's estimated there are twice as many non-registered weapons as registered ones. We've got big guns factories and gun brands in the EU. And there are millions of illegal full-auto weapons like kalashnikovs (well Zastava M70, which is the same) from the war in Yougoslavia in the hands of criminals. And shitloads of fully functional weapons, including handguns, from WWII circulating.
In my native city (Brussels, Belgium), at the moment there are drug dealers firing kalashnikov on police stations regularly (it's a big issue, it's in the news daily and the authorities don't know what to do).
In addition to people shooting at the range (and, sadly, to drug dealers/criminals ruining our cities), we've got lots of hunters too.
Many people at my shooting range have their official gun transport license full (that is 30 weapons) and some have more than 100 weapons in their collection.
It's a fantasy that europeans don't have guns: we're (mostly) responsible with them.
It's maybe because we're responsible with our guns that the EU hasn't banned 3D printers... Yet (it's the EU, so nothing is unthinkable).
The full MacOS as distributed by Apple is engineered to require closed source, non-redistributabe components even on the hardware it is most compatible with. It will completely stop functioning if you remove those parts. The presence of freely licensed components becomes de facto irrelevant.
Unfortunately, things haven’t worked out that way so far.
Even that might be too much. As you’ve insightfully illustrated, 1 law is a slippery slope to infinite laws. Next thing you know we need a license to toast bread in our own damn toasters.
We know poeople are terrible with guns so we...um..try to protect their freedom to be terrible.
These arguments are about values not control gates.