Re: On the unfortunate need for an "age verification" API for legal compliance reasons in some U.S. states
Moritz Schlarb <[email protected]> Wed, 04 Mar 2026 09:08:48 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal,gmane.linux.xdg.devel,gmane.linux.debian.devel.general,gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel,gmane.linux.ubuntu.devel,gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--=-oZpJXu1ueIj4FiHbiRGa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, do in userspace whatever you want to, but I strongly support the Debi= an project in not doing anything related to that matter at all. I might see the case for DebianEdu to offer some of the talked about functionality, but only because it might benefit the actual users and administrative folks for their use cases not because of some random legalit= y. Needless to say that I think of this being completely optional regarding sy= stem installation and administration (I don't even wanna be bothered by being fo= rced to decide whether I want it or not). Just my two IANAL cents. Moritz Also: I understand the thought, but running this thread on 3+ mailing lists simultaneously is not the best idea.... On Sun, 2026-03-01 at 14:48 -0500, Aaron Rainbolt wrote: >=20 > Recently, a new law was passed in California that requires OS vendors > to provide some limited info about a user's age via an API that > application distribution websites and application stores can use. [1] > Colorado seems to be working on a similar law. [2] The law will go into > effect January 1, 2027, it is no longer a draft. I do quite a bit of > work with an OS vendor (working with the Kicksecure [3] and Whonix [4] > projects), and we aren't particularly interested in blocking everyone > in California and Colorado from using our OSes, so we're currently > looking into how to implement an API that will comply with the laws > while also not being a privacy disaster. Given that other distributions > are also investigating what to do with this, and the law requires us to > make a "good faith effort to comply with [the] title, taking into > consideration available technology", I figured it would be a good idea > to bring the issue here. --=-oZpJXu1ueIj4FiHbiRGa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJIBAABCgAyFiEE3wEiR7/GVQGv8oRFDCS4Qcfduq8FAmmn6JAUHG1vc2NobGFy QGRlYmlhbi5vcmcACgkQDCS4Qcfduq/ANhAAs7GezP1hsEDo3tiyeL8wd6BN6gz0 /lYBfCuCwNvqqZz24gatt4Y8HDajRgMUzR/ouL+HaYWabw0/aQXuf9sqSVVhOLki qONGqoUrZ3HMGf5ysvXLxOXwFx5pAJCIab64veqlZB8ShfkzouDMj+FlOogbZ/iB qNBLIs64VIkbC4tErXyGpzk/VPx8gmx6e1VJGjS1t7p6dj+2eSJY7XnY1m6bNqLR jxImJ0fNfcP/5H8dBXGunr9kAT8Y4vN5qEFpLn83J76lqTdESQKDCZYwOTn/0thB 9mWOwBM6zH4AG9le77iOhOpnHeFmYXHqW2ijqd/MPA4xzs+VD5wfrKHM72JUA4xB TjInCHe+AdXnhoBsHTwJa7OjyCqrc3INqccyGCsDOYZfnm/BwWcpNSbGMLC4yvpt prw3y/AFUIzpc8DcpC26APs/I0JWoFIgV58oMYsMjuBTwI5h+IyeOzc9Qe3YXTun 4fMoq/u6EVs8wRqM0rqQYjjDbpPCyNlztaWOpGMS2epO9Iwnl2us0Lftb/mObYOh 8AkYpex2EuGsCs76ShqYzG0P4F9cFKBlNlZfsIfquxH5RiRa8JjJ7NOTUDM9Ani7 IpNeUAxG2tZNyK1tuob2wgdQjgHLJnNh+luFIXOBNQ4Zio/k6mZa7t+YgGVGnYCS MZC5QEDFLaD0+sE= =bY8Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-oZpJXu1ueIj4FiHbiRGa--