California (US), making Win9x great again!

[awkduck]

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Can you "cliff note" summarize it for us?  I cannot read "legaleaze" and gave up two or three sentences in, I cannot "follow" what they are TRYING to say.

I'm reading AGE VERIFICATIONS and I'm not seeing how that ties in with "making Win9x great again".  

[awkduck]

On the first day of 2027, all Operating System vendors are required to implement age verification, when creating a user account.

There will be fines up to $2500 per affected child for negligent violations (you just did get it implemented, for some reason), and $7500 per affected child for intentional violations (you intentionally didn't implement it).

The information is cloudy, on how the verification will actually be required to work. They made everything clear enough, except for how the "verification" will work "outside" of the operating system. If you are interacting with the Internet, the O.S. will "signal" the outside world about age. The cloudy part, is how the age will be verified during account creation.

It apparently includes Operating Systems like ReactOS, Haiku, Linux, Windows, Macos, and FreeDOS. I think FreeDOS/SvarDOS could skate by, if they discontinued their online package managers.

Ubuntu and Debian Linux are already in talks about how to accomplish it. I guess MidnightBSD says they will just prompt California user's with a statement that they aren't allowed to user the O.S. in that state.

Microsoft has all but already done this, anyway.

It's basically like the Discord thing, but only at the Operating System level.

Win9x is no-longer supported, so the post is a joke about how Win9x user are immune to the whole thing.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Ah, okay.  I guess it all kind of looks like a "joke" to me.

Our local media has a constant "propaganda barrage" lately of 'over 50 privacy and safety features that are on by default' for TEEN TIKTOK accounts.

No offense, but how many parents are falling for it???  We used to work closely with youth group kids and "troubled teens".

Today's TEEN is smart enough to NOT register their TikTok, Instagram, you-name-it, AS A TEEN, they know to FAKE their age.

[SweetLow]

4 hours ago, awkduck said:

Win9x is no-longer supported, so the post is a joke about how Win9x user are immune to the whole thing.

Much simpler. All Windows 9x users now is 40+ old by default, no need to verify anything 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Good point.  But...

As a grandparent that knows to let his own kids make the rules of their own homes, my 4yr old grandchild spends more time on a phone in one DAY than I spend on one in an entire YEAR.
That's no exaggeration.

My kids have to make their own rules, not exactly an easy lesson to learn for most grandparents.

Today's 4yr olds will accidentally CLOSE the app that mommy loaded for them.
And that 4yr old KNOWS how to launch that app after they accidentally closed it!

My point is, it doesn't matter if that phone and its monthly fee is somehow associated with a "must by <this age>", there are 4yr olds using that phone.

Edited March 4 by NotHereToPlayGames

[awkduck]

4 hours ago, SweetLow said:

All Windows 9x users now is 40+

yes.

There are a few stragglers, running in "inside" their smart device; but that host network will probably sell them out.

[awkduck]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

No offense, but how many parents are falling for it???

There is an issue there. The bigger issue is that, you have to verify your age "in some way" no matter how old you are.

As a user, you'd be able to bypass things like this. But the services looking for the age "signal" would fail to support you; again, this all depends on how reliable the undefined verification works. A simple "if or else" can be bypassed. But when you think about bypassing a modern certificate, that's different. In this instance, its not just a case of backporting a certificate data base. It would be more like forging an identity, with less legal liability (for now anyway). This will "probably" eventually work like those anti-cheat systems, where the remote service needs to have administrative access to your machine.

[awkduck]

I think the same state is passing "or has passed" a law that, a 3D printer must ask permission "from a remote authority" before it can print something for you. Altering the device comes with a legal repercussion, if caught. The "remote authority" needs to approve what it is you intend to print.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

29 minutes ago, awkduck said:

I think the same state is passing "or has passed" a law that, a 3D printer must ask permission "from a remote authority" before it can print something for you. Altering the device comes with a legal repercussion, if caught. The "remote authority" needs to approve what it is you intend to print.

Let me guess, *without even having to look it up and just knowing California politics*, some form of new "gun control"?

[awkduck]

Ghost Guns.

I do understand the importance of keeping people safe, on both fronts.

To me, it seems like neither front is the actual goal. They both seem like indirect aims, of a larger long term goal; and these two ideologies will be harder to reject (on the face of them, anyway).

I've questioned this before, I wonder how long it will be before you can no longer connect to the Internet, using obsolete machines/software; at least without some in-between authorized secured device.

I'm fine, without being able to access discord. But it would be nice if an old Win98 machine could talk to another Win98 machine, and not be considered nearing a line of terrorism (imagined future scenario).

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 hours ago, awkduck said:

Ghost Guns.

<OT> I'm not familiar with that term.  We have a 3rd Shift maintenance technician that PRINTS his own guns (or at least parts of them).

He uses them for squirrel hunting and makes jerky out of them.  Doesn't even sound the least bit appealing to me, totally AFRAID to even try it!

He's the same maintenance technician that will squirt WD-40 into a conveyor motor instead of replacing the brushes!  Caught one on fire!

So if that's the way he "fixes" a brush worn to the nub, I'm also AFRAID to stand next to him while he fires off his squirrel gun.

Edited March 4 by NotHereToPlayGames

[awkduck]

My understanding "about ghost guns" are that they refer to 3D printed guns, that can't be tracked and also won't set of a metal detector.

Preventative measures and crime investigation become weaker.

Strengthening those things sounds good. Moving the goal post, of what it means to own a device "or software" you purchase, is a bad thing.

I guess, there is always the old saying, "if you have nothing to hide, you should be okay with it".

But it works like this:

I may not "currently" be hiding anything you have an issue with. But when you've implemented all the controls that would rationally "prevent" and "protect", afterwards I will be subject to whatever you decide is rational; and I will have less "to no" recourse to do anything about it.

Often the above logic is decried as supporting "not protecting" and "not preventing" what is important. But, considering the current state of the would, I don't think those two objects are the goal. All things considered, it seems like the real goal is enforcement of predictability; this for the sake of protecting power.

If I was running a industrial production line, this is the exact control I would want. Like controlling the predictability of investment/returns, when growing industrialized chicken meat. The condition of the chickens life isn't relevant, nor hardly the quality of meat that comes from that chicken. What matters is what is important to me, at my level.

I kinda think, at this point in the human management game, we are the chickens.

But, that is a lot of personal conjecture.

I just don't want Win9x to one day be considered a "ghost gun".

For now, Win9x carries the advantage of not mattering "in the bigger picture".

Who knows what will become of these laws, and how far they'll reach. May not really be an issue, in the end. But, it does match patterned modern trends.

Edited March 5 by awkduck

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Makes sense.

And by that logic, isn't Linux a Ghost Gun?

HACKED FIRMMARE on hardware devices that wouldn't be possible if it weren't for Linux.

I know of routers that sell for three times their original value all because they are Linux-based and HACKABLE.

[awkduck]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

isn't Linux a Ghost Gun

Maybe a little more than "current" Windows. Linux is still track-able, and can be forensically (cyber) investigated. Really, your IP address, DNS activity, and used software, provides a lot of actionable information. Firefox and Chrome sell you out, where ever they are ran. Ubuntu even has telemetry. But it isn't direct evidence of "who" you are. But, work is starting to change that. I'm sure Microsoft also has a plan, to address the law, but I've not heard anything about it.

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

HACKED FIRMMARE

If I remember correctly, there was a community grumble about WIFI device access. So, the "hackable" part there was losing ground. The idea was that the Linux kernel drivers would need to reference binary blobs (black box/closed source), for device access (enforced by law?). As for the rest of the routers functionality, I don't really know; aside for allowing you to install your own firewall and routing software. Likely wired devices are often open sourced drivers.

But that doesn't mean the router is less track-able or useful for forensics. Unless we assume that all "closed source" router vendors are adding hidden functionallity, that Linux wouldn't come with.

Linux may not even be free of "hidden" functionality, sitting right there in the open for all to see.

It has "allegedly" happened to OpenBSD, at one time. And that is opensource code. The with the complexity of large code bases, its hard to say this isn't happening more often.

Its not the same thing, but there is a developer "Lennart Poettering" who during his time working on Linux's systemd, also worked at Microsoft. There are some core components of Linux, to much the dismay of some, that have become more "Windows like" as a result of Poettering. RedHat (IBM) is very influential in how Linux is carried into the future. Much of their influence has moved Linux towards a more "corporate" friendly OS (systemd, udev, pulseaudo, pipewire, and wayland). Microsoft is actually a Platinum member of the Linux Foundation (along with many other large names). Most of the Linux people grumbling about this, are hobbyist that know Linux is becoming less useful (for their interests). Many are seeing the reasons they left Windows, showing up in Linux. Linux has been accepting binary blobs, in the the kernel, for quite sometime now. 

I honestly see Win98 as way more akin to a Ghost gun, than Linux.