This law is reeks of surveillance state stuff. it looks evil...
If i was in cali, I would be so upset...
if Texas dose this... ill be furious and head to Austin immediately. or
contact rep instantly.
this state law that cali did is nonsense and impossible to implement on
all systems.
to quote the AVGN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3G4NyelU2Y
On 3/1/26 3:41 PM, Jim Hall via Freedos-devel wrote:
Some of you may have heard about this:
California recently passed "AB-1043 Age verification signals: software
applications and online services" that is basically a "protect the
children" law. Here's a link to the full text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
I think it's dumb and overly broad, but we should talk about it. My
thoughts are at the end.
I think a fair summary is:
1798.500 defines terms, including:
:: (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or
:: directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general
:: purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or
:: download an application.
:: (f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls
:: an application.
::
:: (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that
:: develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a
:: computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
And:
:: 1798.501 (a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following:
::
:: (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an
:: account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of
:: that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s
:: age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
::
:: (2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to
:: a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent
:: real-time application programming interface that identifies, at
:: a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user:
::
[they list age brackets]
::
:: (3) Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with
:: this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a
:: third party for a purpose not required by this title.
1798.501 (b) has requirements for developers, and also mentions an
"application store."
And:
:: 1798.502 (a) With respect to a device for which account setup was
:: completed before January 1, 2027, an operating system provider shall,
:: before July 1, 2027, provide an accessible interface that allows an
:: account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of
:: that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s
:: age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
::
:: 1798.502 (b) If an application last updated with updates on or after
:: January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027,
:: and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of
:: the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall
:: request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that
:: user before July 1, 2027.
1798.503 sets penalties for violations.
1798.504 says the this isn't meant to "modify, impair, or supersede"
antitrust laws (i.e. operating system vendors with their own app
store) but also says:
:: (f) This title does not apply to any of the following:
::
:: (1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.
::
:: (2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47
:: of the United States Code.
::
:: (3) The delivery or use of a physical product.
And:
:: 1798.505. This title shall become operative on January 1, 2027.
--
My thoughts:
DOS was created long before the concept of an "app store" -- and DOS
has never had "accounts." My immediate impression is that this law
cannot apply to FreeDOS (or any DOS) because there's just no mechanism
to accommodate it. No DOS can: not MS-DOS, not DR DOS, not PC DOS, ..
no DOS can do this. Not to mention all the legacy DOS applications
from the 1980s and 1990s.
It seems clear the law was intended for Windows and Mac. But that's
not how the law was written. As I said, I think it's dumb and overly
broad.
I'm curious if anyone knows how (or if) other open source operating
systems are responding to this. I imagine the large Linux distros
(like Red Hat, Ubuntu, ..) have the resources behind them to do
something, but smaller distros will not.
If this law is not amended before the end of the year, I suspect we'll
have a notice on the FreeDOS website in January that says something
like "Do not use if you live in California."
Sound like it.
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
