Re: Age Verification Laws
Hurray for Canada and OpenBSD!
From an American.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:59 AM <achaean@sinelabs.ca> wrote:
At the risk of re-hashing good points made by others on this topic
I'd like to add my thoughts as well.
For me the bottom line is this: policy makers, who without applicable
technical background are required to trust biased experts, are being
lead to these policies for reasons that have little to do with
protecting children. The framing is - in my opinion - merely a
rhetorical device used such that anyone forced to take an opposing
view can be framed as some bumpkin who is against the "children"; it
is irresponsible of policy makers. At the risk of showing off my
tinfoil-hat; It seems to me there are forces at work that align with
large data-hungry incumbents, and the groups that are at the
greatest risk of the resulting technical decisions/requirements from
these policies are indeed open(source) projects exactly like OpenBSD.
I don't believe there's actually some cabal of mustache twirling
miscreants plotting the downfall of what amounts to their future
competition, but to quote George Carlin "There doesn't have to be a
formal conspiracy, when interests align. [the effects are similar]".
What concerns me most is what policy makers may do if they ever try
to actually enforce something like the Age-Verification turd. It's
the aggregate sum of related policies that may coalesce to do real
damage.
I don't want to get too far off the rails but take the TPMv2 for
example, and Microsoft's oddly strong push to force it. On the surface
it seems perfectly reasonable, but do you honestly think that if policy
makers are given the option to "secure" access to, say, government
services by utilizing device-attestation (via the TPM2), that they
won't take the "safe" option, wash their hands of liability, and
outsource attestation to an organization positioned to implement it?
(cough, Microsoft). All necessitated by the need to enforce identity
verification(s). Does anyone think that Microsoft would willingly
behave in a manner that maintains fair market access for others who in
in this context are potentially their competition? History, and human
nature would be at odds with that assumption. I think they would take
shiny new regulatory capture and run off into the sunset with bags of
cash.
I'm not picking on Microsoft specifically, they are not unique. And
the TPM2 isn't evil, my point is it can become something dangerous
to projects like OpenBSD if it's married with policy in the wrong way.
So I categorically agree with those other posters here who believe
that we really need to speak up. THe proposed age verification
systems are the proverbial canary in the coal mine. It would be
benificial for Canada - at least - to implement a safe harbour for
open source projects, if nothing else to protect our own industry
from being overwhelmed by Applsoftoogle.
If it is only about the children, then we should carefully weigh the
impact on their future access to local and national technology
sectors resulting from outsourcing technical responsibility and
authority to a few US firms.
Anyone else feel like open-source systems/projects are being flanked by
mega-corps? ... For our own safety of course.
>
>As many have pointed out, with varying levels of eloquence, I would
>imagine that being incorporated in Canada might be of help here, in a
>similar fashion to the issue of exporting encryption software, which
>is illegal in the US, but not in Canada.
>
>Also in what way does the bill violate the constitution? Not
>disagreeing, just wanting to meet you where you are here.
>
>On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:45=E2=80=AFAM Gabe Bauer <gabeb1277@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I assume that somebody has likely already informed Theo about the new ope=
>rating system level age verification law that takes effect in California st=
>arting January 1st of next year?
>>
>> There are also similar efforts making their way through Colorado and New =
>York at the moment.
>>
>> Most pressingly, a bill with hefty fines for non compliance (about 9.6 mi=
>llion USD), which is enough to completely sink the OpenBSD Foundation and p=
>roject, and it takes effect starting thirteen days from now.
>>
>> Are there any proposed solutions to this?
>>
>> I believe the Brazilian law is more stringent on what is required to comp=
>ly with the measure, including, correct me if I am wrong, actual government=
> ID submission, which is likely not feasible for a default OpenBSD installa=
>tion.
>>
>> Does the OpenBSD project plan to implement the necessary measures to comp=
>ly with these laws, or will they take the route of MidnightBSD, by simply s=
>tipulating in the license that people in these areas are not allowed to use=
> the software?
>>
>> This is VERY important to me as I am sure it is to you, too, as I am sure=
> all of us would like to see projects like this one to continue to exist.
>>
>> I am fairly certain that the California law likely violates the US consti=
>tution, but may go unchallenged.
>>
>> I am less certain about the constitutionality of the Brazilian law within=
> its own borders.
>>
>> I hope this project does not suffer an unkind fate. Thank you for your at=
>tention to this matter!!
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict
>I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment