Re: California law CA AB1043

Chris <[email protected]> Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:21:36 -0800
Newsgroups	gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On 2026-02-27 06:05, Lucas Holt wrote:
> On 2/27/26 8:46 AM, Jan Knepper wrote:
>> I second this.
>> 
>> I am no legal expert, but...
>> What I understand from searching around a bit is that this purely comes 
>> down to a question during installation/setup that asks for the age or birth 
>> date of the user, from which an 'age bracket' is derived.
>> 
>> Obviously, the 'age bracket' then supposed is to be applied to 'access' 
>> (ports, media, Internet, etc).
>> 
>> It seems purely a 'surface' check that is easily circumvented.
>> Any juvenile, installing/setting up any OS that supports this, that knows 
>> answering this question with actual age/birth date will limit access, would 
>> be able to offset age/birth date, and completely circumvent the system.
>> 
>> It seems a typical State of California style solution that is going to cost 
>> a lot of effort/money to implement while providing no true solution to the 
>> problem of (failed) parental responsibility.
>> 
>> 
> I'm trying to wrap my head around the checks at install time for app 
> stores/pkg
> installation.  It makes an assumption we have something to compare it 
> against.  I
> don't have ratings on ports. I have nothing to check against.  If someone is 
> under
> 13 or 14-15 or whatever, there is no metadata to compare if this app is 
> safe. What
> do we even do with that?  It's not helpful.  In the case of a web browser 
> asking
> the OS for the age, that's clear cut.  For the app store clauses, it's 
> clearly
> written for mobile app stores or game consoles without regard for how other
> platforms work.
As currently written, it's completely untenable. This is a common case in US 
law, where state
and federal initiatives are concerned; We have a "noble cause" and we're 
going to mandate it
with th(is/ese) law(s). Not having put enough thought into the process. They 
cast a wide
net. In hopes of garnering enough support to better refine what can 
*actually* be done to
enforce their cause.
As currently written, it can't.
Parent buys cigarettes and alcohol and puts them in cupboard. Parent leaves 
house. Youngster
helps themselves to either/both. Who's to blame? State mandates 
smoking/drinking age is 18/21
respectively. The grocery store asked for ID of parent for 
cigarettes/alcohol. Grocery store
off the hook. Clearly the parent.
Show of hands here; how many of you smoked/drank before you were of legal 
age?
Parent installs OS, agrees that they are an adult. Youngster uses said 
computer. FreeBSD is to blame?
So what, FreeBSD and any other OS becomes contraband? As the mandate is 
currently written. It's
completely unenforceable. That is to say; the onus is *clearly* on the 
parent/guardian. It's
impossible to place blame on the vendor and make it stick. I'm also pretty 
darn sure that as the
current license is written. (at least) FreeBSD is off the hook.

--Chris
0xE512722F.asc (application/pgp-keys, 3 KB)