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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Several US states are proposing or enacting laws that require operating systems to collect a user’s age or age bracket and expose it via an API so apps can apply youth protections, with California’s model often cited and New York considering stricter, non–self-attested verification. Commenters debate whether this is a reasonable way to support parental controls without mass ID uploads, or an unprecedented and unconstitutional step toward regulating how general-purpose computers must operate, particularly threatening to Linux and hobbyist free software projects. Broader worries center on enforcement, fragmentation across jurisdictions, and the potential for these “soft” requirements to evolve into hard identity checks and deeper surveillance of everyday computing.

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.