Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed HB-5511 into law, requiring operating system providers to implement an age assurance system by January 1, 2028.
The law defines “operating system provider” broadly, including commercial and nonprofit entities that develop or supply internet-connected operating systems.
Credit: @LundukeJournal
Hello, @sanitation@lemmy.today .
Why does the title of your post say “operating system providers”? I tried looking for any operating system references in this article but could find none. I’m under the impression that this law applies only to social networking platforms, but I could be mistaken - I only skimmed it.
Thank you.
EDIT: Same with open source projects. I tried searching for “open-source” and “open source” on the page - to no avail.
you need to read the actual text of the bill, not the sanitized PR blog post put out by the people pushing it who want to make it seem like it’s a better idea than it actually is. don’t ever take the word of a corporation or politician at face value.
“Covered manufacturer” means a manufacturer of an Internet-enabled device, an operating system provider, or an application store.
Thank you for clarifying that for me - I appreciate it!
I only reposted from reddit. heres is missing post body:
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed HB-5511 into law, requiring operating system providers to implement an age assurance system by January 1, 2028.
The law defines “operating system provider” broadly, including commercial and nonprofit entities that develop or supply internet-connected operating systems.
Credit: @LundukeJournal
The law explicitly notes that news media, broadband service providers, email providers, and learning management systems are not covered platforms and are not subject to this law.
There are scope limits all over the place in this law. It’s still a terrible law, but whoever posted it on Reddit didn’t seem to understand much of what they read.
The real issue with it is the device level age verification.
EDIT: Link to full text of the law.
EDIT 2: Looking at the text, a big concern would be for users of MacOS, ChromeOS and Windows because each require an internet connected account (AppleID, Google ID, Microsoft account). These types of account would require an age and ID verification mechanism.
Ah, good to know - thank you so much! I think you nailed it.
Don’t quote Lunduke as a source here, please.
You might want to filter out Lunduke. He is totally unreliable.
Thank you for that clarification - I appreciate it.
From page 7 of the bill:
“Operating system provider” means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device’s operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.
So it does appear Linux and other open source OSes would be included.
Is it really internet enabled though if it doesn’t ship with the WiFi drivers?
If I was lawyering this I’d say the device being internet enabled is what matters. But it’s also mega bullshit because I know of toys that have “internet capabilities” that connect to nothing but the manufacturers hosts and only for update purposes.
Not quite. In order to qualify for that category, the device has to require an Internet account registration to function, ie Apple ID, Microsoft account, or Google account. So Macs, Win11+ and ChromeOS qualify, but not Linux.
EDIT:
I am curious about standard Android vs De-Googled versions like GrapheneOS.
After reviewing the actual text of the law, I think the title of this post is false or at the very least extremely misleading by omission. I suggest editing the title or deleting the post altogether as to not spread misinformation.
Still a.terrible law though.
But it’s slippery-slope, camel’s nose in the tent shit. Once you have a law like this, you have the money men pissed off that free OSs have a competitive advantage and they’ll buy the laws they need to eliminate competitors entirely. You’ve also gone from arguing that age verification is a BAD IDEA to arguing free operating systems need an exception, which is much poorer ground to fight on.
100% This is an absolutely terrible law with very worrying implications. Still, the title of the post is untrue and misleading.
Yes.
