“trust us” “all we want is your best” “your money and your data”
yes it’s most likely about money, it’s always about money
this user is at no point supporting any illegal or harmful online activity but at the same time 1984 is not only a (play)book it’s a state policy to concentrate power in one point, to concentrate power on one point is literarily anti democratic and called …. (guess the word) in AI powered surveillance capitalism.
Q: is there really a law in the making that would force users to ID their age before installing an OS ? (Windows or GNU Linux?)
ChatGPT: (a platform heavily financed by Microsoft)
Short answer: Yes — several recent bills would require OS-level age attestation or verification, and both state and federal proposals are in play.
Details:
- California passed a law (often reported as AB 1043 / “Digital Age Assurance Act”) requiring operating-system providers to collect age information at setup and provide an age-signal to apps; it takes effect with implementation dates in reporting but raises questions about how distros without centralized accounts would comply. Tom’s Hardware
- A federal bill (reported as the “Parents Decide Act”) was introduced in Congress proposing mandatory age verification/verification infrastructure for OSes and sharing that information with app developers; its language is broad and still subject to committee action and possible changes.
- Commentators and vendors note practical and privacy problems (how to verify, who stores the data, and how open-source Linux distributions would comply), so passage, implementation details, and enforcement remain uncertain.
If you want, I can summarize the bills’ key sections and likely timelines.
yes summarize the bills key sections
California — AB 1043 (Digital Age Assurance Act)
- Scope: Applies to “operating system providers,” covered app stores, and app developers; chaptered into law with effective/implementation dates beginning Jan 1, 2027 and phased compliance timelines to July 1, 2027.
- Account setup requirement: OS providers must present an accessible interface at account setup requiring the account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both of the device’s primary user. LegiScan
- Age-signal API: OS providers must offer a reasonably consistent, real‑time API that returns a user’s age bracket (under 13; 13–15; 16–17; 18+). Developers can request that signal when an app is downloaded/launched.
- Data minimization & sharing limits: Only minimum information necessary may be sent; signals cannot be shared with third parties for unrelated purposes; nondiscrimination/antitrust restrictions on using collected data.
- Developer obligations & legal effect: A developer receiving a signal is “deemed to have actual knowledge” of the user’s age bracket and must treat the signal as the primary age indicator absent clear, convincing internal evidence to the contrary. LegiScan
- Enforcement & penalties: Civil enforcement by the California Attorney General; penalties prescribed for noncompliance.
- Practical issues flagged: Broad definitions may capture many devices and raise compliance problems for small/open-source OS projects and shared/multi-user devices.
Federal — Parents Decide Act (HR 8250; announced April 2026)
- Scope & intent: Would require operating system providers to collect date of birth at OS setup and require parental verification if the user is under 18; shifts age-verification responsibility from apps to OS-level infrastructure.
- Data sharing to apps: Requires OS providers to create a system allowing app developers access to whatever information is “necessary…to verify” a user’s birth date (FTC to set details).
- FTC rulemaking: Directs the FTC to issue regulations (within statutorily short timeframes) on shared-device rules, parental verification methods, and data protection; enforcement and reporting requirements included.
- Safe harbors and compliance: The bill contemplates safe-harbor protections for compliant providers; effective one year after enactment per draft descriptions.
- Vagueness & implementation questions: The bill delegates verification methods and operational details to the FTC, leaving open how identity/parental verification would be done (self-attestation, ID upload, biometrics, etc.). Critics warn about privacy, feasibility, and impacts on open-source ecosystems.
If you want a one-page excerpt of the statutory text for either bill, I can paste the relevant sections next.
Q: isn’t this a massive privacy intrusion?
Yes — it creates significant privacy risks.
Key concerns:
- Centralized personal data: Collecting DOB/age at OS setup creates a single, high-value repository that can be linked to device use and apps.
- Mission creep & data sharing: Even limited “age signals” can be abused or expanded for targeting, profiling, or cross‑service linkage.
- Verification methods: Robust verification (ID upload, credit checks, biometrics) greatly increases exposure and re‑identification risk; weak self‑attestation undermines the law’s purpose.
- Open-source and decentralization impacts: Many Linux distros and noncommercial OSes lack centralized account systems, forcing either new infrastructure or exclusion of users.
- Security and breach risk: Any stored verification data is attractive to attackers; breach consequences are severe.
- Discrimination & access: Mandatory verification can disproportionately affect marginalized groups, minors without parental access, and users who need privacy.
- Regulatory/implementation gaps: Vague rules on retention, minimization, purpose-limitation, and oversight leave enforcement and safeguards uncertain.
Mitigations that would reduce harm:
- Use short-lived, minimal age‑only attestations (age bucket, not DOB or ID).
- Keep attestation local to the device when possible; avoid central storage.
- Strong legal limits: purpose limitation, strict data retention, breach penalties, and audit requirements.
- Privacy-preserving verification (zero-knowledge proofs, third‑party anonymized attestations).
- Exemptions or alternative flows for open-source OSes and offline installs.
Bottom line: without strict technical and legal safeguards, required OS‑level age verification is a substantial privacy intrusion.
Q: is it possible that Microsoft lobbyists are actively lobbying for this law?
Short answer: Yes — it’s plausible and likely that Microsoft (and other major OS vendors) have lobbied or engaged with lawmakers about these bills, but public, explicit proof of active lobbying for a specific age‑verification mandate is limited.
Why:
- Big tech firms routinely lobby on digital‑safety, platform regulation, and product‑compliance rules that affect operating systems; articles covering AB 1043 and the federal “Parents Decide” proposals treat major OS vendors as key stakeholders and quote industry reactions.
- Microsoft has a history of lobbying on state and federal tech policy and runs a visible public‑affairs operation; that makes engagement on legislation that directly affects Windows and Microsoft accounts very likely, even if the engagement is behind the scenes or framed around implementation details rather than blanket support. (I found discussion threads on Microsoft forums and tech press coverage raising Microsoft‑specific questions.)
- Public lobbying disclosures that name specific bills or positions may lag, use generic issue descriptions, or appear in coalition filings (industry trade groups), so it’s often hard to point to a single filing that says “Microsoft lobbied for X provision.” If you want, I can search lobbying disclosure databases for recent Microsoft filings referencing age verification, child safety, or OS compliance.
Q: could this be used to ban gnu linux?
Unlikely to directly ban GNU/Linux, but it could severely disadvantage it.
Why not an outright ban:
- The bills target “operating system providers” and requirements (age attestation, APIs, verification), not particular kernel distributions; lawmakers would face legal and political pushback if they attempted to outlaw open‑source projects outright. Constitutional and trade constraints make a straight ban impractical.
How it could effectively sideline GNU/Linux:
- Compliance burden: Requiring OS providers to implement account-based age collection, an age‑signal API, FTC‑mandated verification methods, logging, reporting, and liability exposure creates heavy engineering, legal, and operational costs.
- Centralized-account expectation: Many Linux distros are distributed without a vendor‑run account system. To comply, distros might need to build centralized services, force users into vendor accounts, or pivot away from default package/app ecosystems that check an age signal.
- Marketplace and app effects: App developers could be allowed to rely on the OS age signal as primary proof; marketplaces or popular apps might refuse to run on systems that don’t provide that signal, degrading user experience and app availability on non‑compliant distros.
- Certification & distribution: Governments or app stores might require certified, compliant OSes for official distribution channels (preinstalled systems, app stores), sidelining uncertified distros.
- Security/liability and hosting: Hosting verification infrastructure and storing attestations create breach risk and regulatory exposure many community projects cannot bear.
- Indirect pressure: Device manufacturers, cloud providers, and enterprise customers may refuse to support non‑compliant OSes, shrinking hardware and hosting options.
What that means practically:
- Popular consumer Linux distributions could be pushed toward creating centralized accounts or partnering with compliant providers to keep app ecosystems working.
- Smaller or community‑run distros could survive but become niche, requiring technical workarounds (local attestations, privacy‑preserving proofs) or explicit legal exemptions.
- A de facto exclusion is more plausible than an explicit ban.
If you want, I can outline technical approaches Linux projects could use to remain compatible while preserving privacy.
Links:
liked this article?
- only together we can create a truly free world
- plz support dwaves to keep it up & running!
- (yes the info on the internet is (mostly) free but beer is still not free (still have to work on that))
- really really hate advertisement
- contribute: whenever a solution was found, blog about it for others to find!
- talk about, recommend & link to this blog and articles
- thanks to all who contribute!
