Mixed feelings on this.
I’m glad Linux is getting the exemption the community has so vocally shouted for. Maybe this will finally drive the “Year of the Linux Desktop”.
But I worry that this is just them slowly cranking up the temp to cook the frog. The boil is still coming, just slightly slower to prevent us from jumping out of the pot, ya know?
Suppose we’ll see.
Remember, today’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole.
Saw a comment on an article about this specifically.
"All the “age verification” bill are unconstitutional 1st Amendment violations and can be struck down in court.
Code is expressive conduct under Bernstein v. DOJ and Junger v. Daley.
Compelled creation of expressive content is still compelled speech (Wooley, Hurley, Janus).
Age verification mandates require developers to author, maintain, and deploy expressive logic they would not otherwise create.
The state cannot force a private actor to speak, design, or encode a message or system that expresses the state’s preferred policy. "
So it seems, if this is sound, that an open-sourced software, being from a private entity, cannot be compelled to implement something like this without infringing on free speech. Maybe they go after the first amendment, but that’s an entirely other legal struggle than this looked initially and would be significantly harder to do.
Wouldn’t the argument be that they aren’t compelling speech, but preventing the execution of non-compliant code?
Sure, devs could publish software without age verification, but running it would be illegal.
IIRC not with the current phrasing of the bills.
I don’t know what their arguments would be, but even if it were, that seems akin to saying it’s legal to say but it’s illegal to hear. It depends pretty much entirely on what the courts think of an argument like that.
More like saying it’s legal to publish the plans for a gun, but illegal for the layperson to build maybe?
The difference there is that the basis for restrictions comes from already established precedent surrounding regulation of firearms. It would be illegal for the layperson to build, but not necessarily someone licensed to do so.
In this case, there is no precedent for requiring an ID to use computer hardware. The basis (as far as I understand it, but I’m not a lawyer) being used to force these ID laws is that these OSs (Google, Apple, and Microsoft) are actually a commercial service which knowingly deals with children, and there are established laws about how companies are allowed to enter into service with children and obligations/regulations that require a good faith attempt to determine what sort of customer they are dealing with.
In the case of FOSS, though, there is no associated company and no contract of service, and no reasonable way for a developer or maintainer to know who is using their service. It’s much closer to someone giving away a book than it is to basically anything else, and there are decades of precedent backing this up, which makes it a much easier thing to challenge in court.
Code is expressive conduct under Bernstein v. DOJ and Junger v. Daley.
I was unaware of this, though it is very good to hear. I’ll need to look more into those rulings.
Yes, I definitely worry about that as well, or they are going to try and plant someone to make the changes and push them like the fool with the age stuff in systemd.
The voluntary overcompliance weirdos.
Yeah, even if they exempt it, commercial platforms may push for using a machine that can verify age, reducing Linux machines to hobbyist only activities.
Which means installers will now abandon their plans to ask for age at installation, and the systemd field will stay in level with other fields in terms of usefulness and usage rate. Good.
Exempting FOSS is a good thing, but nobody really needs these laws in the first place.
This is digital ID.
