Re: Age Verification Laws Hurray for Canada and OpenBSD!
>From an American. David J. Raymond [email protected] http://kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:59 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > At the risk of re-hashing good points made by others on this topic > I'd like to add my thoughts as well. > > For me the bottom line is this: policy makers, who without applicable > technical background are required to trust biased experts, are being > lead to these policies for reasons that have little to do with > protecting children. The framing is - in my opinion - merely a > rhetorical device used such that anyone forced to take an opposing > view can be framed as some bumpkin who is against the "children"; it > is irresponsible of policy makers. At the risk of showing off my > tinfoil-hat; It seems to me there are forces at work that align with > large data-hungry incumbents, and the groups that are at the > greatest risk of the resulting technical decisions/requirements from > these policies are indeed open(source) projects exactly like OpenBSD. > I don't believe there's actually some cabal of mustache twirling > miscreants plotting the downfall of what amounts to their future > competition, but to quote George Carlin "There doesn't have to be a > formal conspiracy, when interests align. [the effects are similar]". > > What concerns me most is what policy makers may do if they ever try > to actually enforce something like the Age-Verification turd. It's > the aggregate sum of related policies that may coalesce to do real > damage. > > I don't want to get too far off the rails but take the TPMv2 for > example, and Microsoft's oddly strong push to force it. On the surface > it seems perfectly reasonable, but do you honestly think that if policy > makers are given the option to "secure" access to, say, government > services by utilizing device-attestation (via the TPM2), that they > won't take the "safe" option, wash their hands of liability, and > outsource attestation to an organization positioned to implement it? > (cough, Microsoft). All necessitated by the need to enforce identity > verification(s). Does anyone think that Microsoft would willingly > behave in a manner that maintains fair market access for others who in > in this context are potentially their competition? History, and human > nature would be at odds with that assumption. I think they would take > shiny new regulatory capture and run off into the sunset with bags of > cash. > > I'm not picking on Microsoft specifically, they are not unique. And > the TPM2 isn't evil, my point is it can become something dangerous > to projects like OpenBSD if it's married with policy in the wrong way. > > So I categorically agree with those other posters here who believe > that we really need to speak up. THe proposed age verification > systems are the proverbial canary in the coal mine. It would be > benificial for Canada - at least - to implement a safe harbour for > open source projects, if nothing else to protect our own industry > from being overwhelmed by Applsoftoogle. > > If it is only about the children, then we should carefully weigh the > impact on their future access to local and national technology > sectors resulting from outsourcing technical responsibility and > authority to a few US firms. > > Anyone else feel like open-source systems/projects are being flanked by > mega-corps? ... For our own safety of course. > > > > >As many have pointed out, with varying levels of eloquence, I would > >imagine that being incorporated in Canada might be of help here, in a > >similar fashion to the issue of exporting encryption software, which > >is illegal in the US, but not in Canada. > > > >Also in what way does the bill violate the constitution? Not > >disagreeing, just wanting to meet you where you are here. > > > >On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:45=E2=80=AFAM Gabe Bauer <[email protected]> > wro= > >te: > >> > >> Hello! > >> > >> I assume that somebody has likely already informed Theo about the new > ope= > >rating system level age verification law that takes effect in California > st= > >arting January 1st of next year? > >> > >> There are also similar efforts making their way through Colorado and > New = > >York at the moment. > >> > >> Most pressingly, a bill with hefty fines for non compliance (about 9.6 > mi= > >llion USD), which is enough to completely sink the OpenBSD Foundation and > p= > >roject, and it takes effect starting thirteen days from now. > >> > >> Are there any proposed solutions to this? > >> > >> I believe the Brazilian law is more stringent on what is required to > comp= > >ly with the measure, including, correct me if I am wrong, actual > government= > > ID submission, which is likely not feasible for a default OpenBSD > installa= > >tion. > >> > >> Does the OpenBSD project plan to implement the necessary measures to > comp= > >ly with these laws, or will they take the route of MidnightBSD, by simply > s= > >tipulating in the license that people in these areas are not allowed to > use= > > the software? > >> > >> This is VERY important to me as I am sure it is to you, too, as I am > sure= > > all of us would like to see projects like this one to continue to exist. > >> > >> I am fairly certain that the California law likely violates the US > consti= > >tution, but may go unchallenged. > >> > >> I am less certain about the constitutionality of the Brazilian law > within= > > its own borders. > >> > >> I hope this project does not suffer an unkind fate. Thank you for your > at= > >tention to this matter!! > > > > > > > >-- > >Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict > >I've taken my software vows - for beta or for worse > > > > > >
