The coordinated effort worked. When lawmakers finalized Colorado SB26-051, they added Section 6-30-105(e) to the text. This specific clause waives compliance for operating systems and applications distributed under licenses that allow copying, modifying, and redistributing without platform-imposed technical restrictions. Why the Section 6-30-105(e) Exemption Protects Decentralized Tech

This exemption establishes a formal legislative precedent for the tech industry. It legally shields free and open-source operating systems from hardware-level age attestation laws that closed ecosystems like iOS and Windows will soon have to follow.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It’s unenforceable on Linux. A Linux user can simply remove or modify any code running on their machine. Fedora, Debian, and Arch can’t make a user verify their age any more than they can force you to use Gnome. It’s kinda the whole point of FOSS.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      There is a very easy way to force linux users to enforce this. However, I won’t give it away here, because as far as I can tell the current law makers are clueless.

      And I don’t want to give them clues.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        11 hours ago

        There isn’t an easy way. There may be a way to enforce it when you connect to a remote site, but that requires the remote computer to implement it, not you.

      • potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I’m already seeing that in a year or two, we’re getting blocked on websites or electron applications because of age verification just like in android with Google Play Services. Like use age verification software or get blocked for 99% the internet.

        They don’t even need to turn it into law.

      • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Our current law makers are still debating if freeing the slaves was a good idea. That’s how far behind they are.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I’m going to argue that you share it because one thing you can count on is very determined nerds to defeat it.

        Every time legislators tried to enforce some sort of dystopian thing, developers saw it as damage and routed around it.

        • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You’re not wrong, security through obscurity eventually fails. In this case however, time counts, the longer it can be cut off, the more chance of some sanity returning, of backlash building politically. The time to route around is after a law is made, preferably as flawed a law as possible.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      And that’s the whole point of the amendment to that law. Their congress critters were enlightened on the futility of such an endeavor. Next is California.