Re: California law CA AB1043

On 2/26/26 13:57, Cy Schubert wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Mark Millard 
> write
> s:
>> On 2/26/26 07:12, Lucas Holt wrote:
>>> California is requiring age verification checks for account creation at
>>> the OS level with a signal API to provide information to applications in
>>> 2027.  They explicitly call out individual developers or companies with
>>> fines of 2500 dollars per child affected.
>>>
>>> I wondered if anyone has started looking into this on the FreeBSD side. 
>>> The way I read this, we would need to implement changes when creating
>>> accounts, provide a mechanism to check from apps (library), and provide
>>> support within package managers to filter apps?  Then browsers would
>>> need to implement this and call the respective OS APIs for age
>>> verification for desktop use.
>>>
>>> It seems like it makes sense for multiple *NIX systems to implement a
>>> similar mechanism across platforms.
>>>
>>> The paragraph near the bottom seems to indicate that it wouldn't apply
>>> to server use since indirect signals aren't required to be honored.
>>>
>>> For reference:
>>>
>>> https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704
>>>
>>
>> Hmm. 1798.500(e)(1) [and (2)] would appear to make port-package
>> distribution of "Application" (but plural) a "Covered application
>> store". At the moment I do not see how the FreeBSD port-package
>> distribution mechanism would fit into this in its current form. It would
>> seem to require accounts to be involved for all "Account holder" (but
>> plural), for example. The "operating system provider" has to require
>> account setup to indicate age information for the "user" (such as a
>> child) and has to provide secure access to the information "when the
>> application is downloaded and launched".
> 
> Before jumping to any conclusions I think we ought to look at what 
> companies like Red Hat and Canonical are doing in this space.

I made not have made it clear, but I was not intending more than a
heads-up for folks like, say, core that would likely need to decide on
the implications of the actual law (if any) for the context at hand. The
referenced legal text was enough that I thought it justified that much
(and not more).

I did use "would appear", "would seem", and "may be" (below) indicating
that my preliminary read need not be definitive. At best it is a valid
prompt for appropriate folks to look for themselves. That may well
involve checking what the wider environment's examples like Red Hat
conclude.

Other than this note, I do not plan any more contribution to the subject
area on any lists, whatever is done or not done.

> 
>>
>> Since the FreeBSD OS includes applications and the means to download
>> optional applications that are also part of the OS, there may be similar
>> issues for it (relative to itself) as far as I an tell.
>>
>> The title does not apply to:
>>
>> ) broadband internet access service (Section 3100)
>> ) telecommunication service (Section 153 of Title 4 of the US code)
>> ) Delivery or use of a physical product
>>
>> But I doubt that such applies.
>>
>> There are time constraints that I'll not get into but would seem to be a
>> problem.
>>
>> -- 
>> ===
>> Mark Millard
>> marklmi at yahoo.com
>>
> 
> 


-- 
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com