Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What the laws actually require (per thread)

  • Several comments stress that current CA/IL-style bills only require:
    • OS account setup to include a birthdate/age field.
    • OS to expose a consistent API returning one of a few age brackets (e.g., <13, 13–16, 16–18, 18+).
    • No actual ID check or verification in these versions; it’s self-attested by whoever configures the account.
  • Others note: bill titles use “verification,” and New York’s proposed S8102A explicitly forbids self-reporting and delegates enforcement details to the Attorney General.

Disagreement over headline and threat level

  • Some say the article’s “ID before booting” framing is misleading given the current self-attestation model.
  • Others argue this is a classic “first step” and that “verification” and stronger controls will follow to “close loopholes.”

Privacy, surveillance, and slippery slope concerns

  • Strong fear of an expanding surveillance state: mandated OS telemetry, phone spyware, car sobriety/attention sensors, pervasive cameras, and now OS-level age signals.
  • Several invoke slippery-slope/“authoritarian ratchet” arguments; others counter that “slippery slope” is often misused but concede surveillance laws have a historical pattern of expansion.
  • Technical concern: logging age brackets over time can effectively reveal date of birth for all current minors.

Impact on Linux, FOSS, and jurisdiction

  • Worry that laws explicitly targeting “operating system providers” will:
    • Burden hobby distros and volunteer maintainers with compliance and liability.
    • Be hard to apply sensibly to servers, headless systems, Docker, IoT, and devices without real “users.”
  • Proposed responses: region-locking, feature flags by jurisdiction, or outright noncompliance with warnings.
  • Some argue most desktop Linux work is already corporate-funded and will adapt; others dispute that and fear chilling effects on hobby projects and “freedom to compute.”

Child protection vs. parental responsibility

  • Many agree harmful algorithmic content for minors is a real problem.
  • Split views:
    • Some see OS-level age flags as a reasonable tool enabling parental controls.
    • Others argue it’s ineffective “theater,” should be opt‑in, and that genuine parental controls and education are the right locus.

Rights, enforcement, and analogies

  • Debate over whether regulating OS behavior violates “code is speech” and First Amendment protections.
  • Comparisons to voting ID, KYC/AML, and licensing in other high-impact domains (cars, planes, engineering).
  • Some see regulation of computing as overdue; others see it as an attack on fundamental liberties and general‑purpose computing.