OS must verify your age before use

[Cyclotron]

Humanity won't go extinct but will no longer progress. Mass surveillance is still less lethal than, let's say, black death. However, when it becomes total, it's no longer able to overcome the government because the behavior of every citizen can be predicted by AI. This is "unrecoverable dystopia" scenario of existential risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk#Non-extinction_risks

A dystopian scenario shares the key features of extinction and unrecoverable collapse of civilization: before the catastrophe humanity faced a vast range of bright futures to choose from; after the catastrophe, humanity is locked forever in a terrible state.

And we've made movies about it.

[BrianHG]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

[paulca]

Its okay though.  History has shown us how it ends.

The soviets required a central control structure.  It needed up to date and accurate information to work.

Farmers sent them rubbish data to look good and not get disiplined for low output.

This went on for decades until the Soviet Union was, on paper, 100 times better off than it was in reality.

The counter to all this mass data capture and surveilance is simple. 

Taint the data.  It's already happening and the beauty is, while some people are trying to organise it... it is happening "o'natural" and people are just giving invalid and bogus information on all the forms.

[Jeroen3]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

It isn't, the chip inserted into your hand at birth will verify it's you.

[Deodand2014]

And three words that should never be allowed to be put together.

Digital Australia Card

[SiliconWizard]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

You really don't?

[soldar]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

You really don't?

I have a feeling you are missing the tone and intention of the message.

[BrianHG]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

You really don't?

I have a feeling you are missing the tone and intention of the message.

Yup, you were supposed to view it as a sarcastic viewpoint.

If I am in the USA, and I want to use a computer at a public library, and I don't have a USA id to verify my age, am I now not allowed to use any such public resources.

What about online net café / gaming arcades?

[SiliconWizard]

So, to use my smart thermostat, smart light switches, or smart fridge / toaster, smart car, they will need to know the age of the each person using them?

I don't see how this is a problem.

You really don't?

I have a feeling you are missing the tone and intention of the message.

Yup, you were supposed to view it as a sarcastic viewpoint.

If I am in the USA, and I want to use a computer at a public library, and I don't have a USA id to verify my age, am I now not allowed to use any such public resources.

What about online net café / gaming arcades?

You're pointing out the absurdity of linking an OS "account" to a specific person, which indeed doesn't make sense in general. Such a "prerequisite" implies that using shared accounts, "guest" accounts, would become illegal as well. The implications are horrific. Merely allowing a friend or family member to use your "account" would become illegal. Letting anyone use your IoT devices would become illegal too. Your kids would not be allowed to use your family fridge.

Of course you were being sarcastic, but surely this is the point of view of a majority of people, otherwise this kind of laws would never be voted? Or maybe we just don't live in democracies? That can't be true.

[paulca]

If I am in the USA, and I want to use a computer at a public library, and I don't have a USA id to verify my age, am I now not allowed to use any such public resources.

What about online net café / gaming arcades?

This is already happening with the iPhone.  At least a limited roll out of this has landed on iOS and the phone asks you to submit to an age verification check and if you refuse to comply...  sets your phone to "Child mode" and denies you access to half the internet.  No "Opt out".  The report I watched even went as far as to say that private messages where being filtered and blurred due to their "client side scanning" tech.

A lot of folks here will be smiling about stay on old tech, but I'm sure they will come for you soon enough.

You see I don't fear the OS issues, or at least I don't think I will.  However... the wolf knows there are more than one door.

My PCs and servers are linux.  It should be trivial to disable this check.

However...
What about my phone?  Android is not in my control?
What about in work when my work laptop starts asking me for a BioMetric scan and age check.  Can I even refuse to comply and not be able to work?

As Brian summoned, what about any and all "public" access computers/terminals and even bank ATMs!

BTW.  Changes rushing through in the UK are "porting" the driving licenses to the DigitalID One Login system this year.  Opt out of that and you can't drive.  Sign up to the GovID / DigitalID system is basically required and mandatory to get a professional role in the UK "today".  Most 3rd party, off the shelf, back ground checks now require it and your HMRC (tax) login.  That requires biometrics, photo ID, etc. etc.   I'm already on that database now.  No choice.  No longer do they ask you for your references and your previous salaries or employment history... they ask you for your HMRC details and they go and check themselves.

Digital ID is completely optional, just like eating and drinking and breathing are.

What about the hypothetical of...  this catches on, all governments get on board with it.  Then they realise its not worknig, so they move up one layer and demand that these OS's and Applications provide a packet header flag denoting the age of the user and the ISP becomes responsible for filtering and blocking non-adult traffic.  Lets put  it bluntly.  "Non-tracked to the individual traffic".  Your digital fingerprint on every packet.

[paulca]

BTW.  If you explore the "Why?", "Why would they do this?"

Power.  Control.  Because they now can.  Because the technology allows it and almost requires it.

I grew up in the 80s.  In my teens I had a running conspriacy theory about the government, no, I called "The system", watching everything you did, credit cards, phones, mail, etc.  This was pre-internet for me.

Of course when I grew up a bit and studied computers I quickly learnt that the processing power just did not exist to start coorelating data across all these billions of records.  It just just didn't.  "The system" was not watching you because they system didn't have enough power or compute to.

In the 2000s I did hold to the "coorelation" issue.  All those little bits of information and associations you leave lying around the internet, could, technically be coorelated and aggregated into a profile.  Whether it is accurate or not is another matter.

However.  Again people rightly pointed out that that power does not exist yet either.  Marketers are maybe able to aggregate a couple of close datasets but the effort is high, so the cost is high.  If they can sell without doing it, they wont bother.

Now in 2025+ they very much do have that power and that compute and they have the technology in AI that can do that mass coorelation and at minimal human effort too.

This fact alone immediately REQUIRES that governments capitalise on it as quickly as possible.  The AI investments we see DEMAND it and are in fact exactly why that level of investment exists and even the banks are holding the risks happily.  If it proceeds the banks obligation to do "KYC" gets released from them and all the costs associated with it.  Instead it becomes "Know your citizen" and when the bank wants to vett someone is "sound" they just make a GovID API call.  If the government say they are sound, they are sound, transaction approved.  If the government say that "No, Joe Blogs smell funny", then "Transaction denied", even if it was for a loaf of bread or a tank of gas.  Even if the system is completely wrong.

And having such a system that can scan and coorelate millions of individuals across hundreds of datasets and build profiles and answer queries on individuals.  Is completely useless unless you have one very key bit of information.  A "primary key" for the individual.  If you can coorelate all of that together and then pin it onto a single person legally, then it will actually give you the control you want.  Therefore.  Digital ID is a prereq for all of this and it's why they are pushing it through teh front door, back door and every f'ing window right now.

The weapon we can use against it is to "taint the data".  Enough bogus and "looks right" information that is actually made up, deliberately obsfucating or just fabricated will eventually make the whole thing unusable.

.. or I've always been a little paranoid.

[paulca]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tCKmWVM5iuc

People at least seem to be taking things into their own hands in London.

[Cyclotron]

.....
You see I don't fear the OS issues, or at least I don't think I will.  However... the wolf knows there are more than one door.

My PCs and servers are linux.  It should be trivial to disable this check.

When secure boot and signature based execution are required Linux is no safe haven. Amazon recently announced no side loading on their TV stick, Google will block side loading of unverified apps. Both of these are examples of a Linux environment that it wouldn't be trivial to disable checks.

I've experienced corporate systems already that lock down and check that Linux is secure boot and only executing signed code. It's not far fetched to see that in the future for some "Think of the Children!" law.

[default0.0player]

.....
You see I don't fear the OS issues, or at least I don't think I will.  However... the wolf knows there are more than one door.

My PCs and servers are linux.  It should be trivial to disable this check.

When secure boot and signature based execution are required Linux is no safe haven. Amazon recently announced no side loading on their TV stick, Google will block side loading of unverified apps. Both of these are examples of a Linux environment that it wouldn't be trivial to disable checks.

I've experienced corporate systems already that lock down and check that Linux is secure boot and only executing signed code. It's not far fetched to see that in the future for some "Think of the Children!" law.

Will your computer's "Secure Boot" turn out to be "Restricted Boot"? https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

[Cyclotron]

Will your computer's "Secure Boot" turn out to be "Restricted Boot"? https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

The banking app or some other tools will refuse to launch on "insecure" systems. This will be required by the governments, you know, for safety and security. They also won't accept your digital ID from non-secure booted systems, so you won't be able to do municipal things.  You won't be able to use credit cards to shop online and so on.  These things are already creeping into the computer world.

The benefits of secure boot and signed code are low-hanging fruit to gain more control.

[Deodand2014]

If I am in the USA, and I want to use a computer at a public library, and I don't have a USA id to verify my age, am I now not allowed to use any such public resources.

What about online net café / gaming arcades?

BTW.  Changes rushing through in the UK are "porting" the driving licenses to the DigitalID One Login system this year.  Opt out of that and you can't drive.  Sign up to the GovID / DigitalID system is basically required and mandatory to get a professional role in the UK "today".  Most 3rd party, off the shelf, back ground checks now require it and your HMRC (tax) login.  That requires biometrics, photo ID, etc. etc.   I'm already on that database now.  No choice.  No longer do they ask you for your references and your previous salaries or employment history... they ask you for your HMRC details and they go and check themselves.

Digital ID is completely optional, just like eating and drinking and breathing are.

You've just described the basics of the 1980s proposal known as the 'Australia Card' (Which was soundly defeated) here's Wikipedia's account of that sorry idea. It was of course going to be a 'voluntary' thing but if you didn't have one you'd be barred from work, owning a home, renting a home, having a bank account, etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card

[default0.0player]

Will your computer's "Secure Boot" turn out to be "Restricted Boot"? https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

The banking app or some other tools will refuse to launch on "insecure" systems. This will be required by the governments, you know, for safety and security. They also won't accept your digital ID from non-secure booted systems, so you won't be able to do municipal things.  You won't be able to use credit cards to shop online and so on.  These things are already creeping into the computer world.

The benefits of secure boot and signed code are low-hanging fruit to gain more control.

or more precisely, "secure" boot only benefits them, not us. I purposely turn off "secure" boot and disable TPM. I guess I'll have to search for ways of emulation/circumvention methods

"secure" boot is part of "Tivoization" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.html

[soldar]

I am in the UK for a few days and have found out Imgur.com is blocked here. I use some other forums where people host the images in imgur but the images are blocked.

Going to imgur.com yields the message

Content not available in your region.
Learn more about Imgur access in the United Kingdom

It seems related to so-called "data protection" laws. Imgur finds it easier to block UK than to have to deal with the complexities of the law. Many other American sites do the same and block all of Europe or, maybe, all IPs outside of the USA.

I can still get around these blocks by using VPN but it is disheartening to see the one Internet is becoming a number of separate, disconnected islands.

[tom66]

It's very disheartening.

I can't blame Imgur for not wanting to deal with Ofcom.  The restrictions are significant.  Imgur allows almost unlimited user upload capability, to comply with OSA, Imgur would either need to age-gate the whole site (requires engaging with an age assurance provider or taking credit card details), or they would need to filter out adult content, self harm stuff, ...

If they fail to do that, Ofcom can potentially fine them up to 10% of global turnover.

Now the idea of a UK government agency fining a US corporation is fraught with legal difficulty.  It's almost certain any US court would throw out such a case, much like Trump trying to sue the BBC is likely to fail on similar grounds.  But it would still cost a significant amount to defend.  The juice isn't worth the squeeze - what little they'd get from remaining in the UK market isn't worth it any more.   So it's easy enough to just geoblock the UK and say, nope, not our problem.

4chan have taken the opposite stance of essentially saying, go on, try suing us, we're in the USA, you're not.  As strategies go, it's very likely to succeed, but Ofcom will just not try suing them because the loss of such a case would make them look like total muppets.  Well, even more so than they currently look.

You just need a VPN nowadays to access the internet as a global resource.  It's particularly annoying for Imgur since they block a lot of VPNs (possibly unintentionally due to similar IPs, but they're ratelimited with an error message.)

[soldar]

Well, another thing the UK could do is order Internet suppliers to block whatever they do not want people in the UK to see. But I suppose this could be challenged in the courts of justice.

Essentially it is what LaLiga does in Spain. They claim people watch soccer matches without paying and that Cloudfare is responsible of facilitating this so the courts have authorized that all internet providers must block Cloudfare during soccer matches even if this blocks many other websites that have nothing to do with the issue. The fact that any judge could consider this is fair justice speaks volumes about the "learned judges". They have also subpoenaed the CEO and other executives of Cloudfare and demanded they show up in Spain to answer to accusations. They executives in California must have been laughing like crazy.

What I find most concerning is the accumulation of information about private people by companies like Google, credit cards, airlines, etc. And this is not voluntary on our part. If you want to interact with any bank or whoever, you need to install an app on your phone and you need to have a Google or Apple account to download and install the app. The degree of knowledge and control this gives Google is just outstanding and, IMHO, should not be legal.

A customer of a bank or other business should be able to install their app without going through Google.

IMHO the privacy laws of European countries are useless. Much bureaucracy but no real effect.

[NE666]

If you want to interact with any bank or whoever, you need to install an app on your phone and you need to have a Google or Apple account to download and install the app.

No one told that to the major UK high street bank that I use.

I don't have any banking app installed on any of my devices, and I manage to 'interact' with them just fine. Even when things go pear-shaped (such as when the chip in my bank card failed and I required access to emergency funds and a new card).

It therefore 'depends', on where you live and who you choose to bank with.

[tom66]

Well, another thing the UK could do is order Internet suppliers to block whatever they do not want people in the UK to see. But I suppose this could be challenged in the courts of justice.

UK courts have already blocked piratebay and sites like that.  However, enforcement is spotty.  It's been unblocked for several years now here.  ISPs do not care what you do with your connections, in general.

Essentially it is what LaLiga does in Spain. They claim people watch soccer matches without paying and that Cloudfare is responsible of facilitating this so the courts have authorized that all internet providers must block Cloudfare during soccer matches even if this blocks many other websites that have nothing to do with the issue. The fact that any judge could consider this is fair justice speaks volumes about the "learned judges". They have also subpoenaed the CEO and other executives of Cloudfare and demanded they show up in Spain to answer to accusations. They executives in California must have been laughing like crazy.

Seriously? Cloudflare covers like, 25% of the internet now.  And that is blocked because people pirate football??  Insane.

Seems that it breaks loads of workflows:
https://www.reddit.com/r/docker/comments/1sjio1g/no_one_in_spain_can_docker_pull_right_now_because/

[soldar]

Well, another thing the UK could do is order Internet suppliers to block whatever they do not want people in the UK to see. But I suppose this could be challenged in the courts of justice.

UK courts have already blocked piratebay and sites like that.  However, enforcement is spotty.  It's been unblocked for several years now here.  ISPs do not care what you do with your connections, in general.

Essentially it is what LaLiga does in Spain. They claim people watch soccer matches without paying and that Cloudfare is responsible of facilitating this so the courts have authorized that all internet providers must block Cloudfare during soccer matches even if this blocks many other websites that have nothing to do with the issue. The fact that any judge could consider this is fair justice speaks volumes about the "learned judges". They have also subpoenaed the CEO and other executives of Cloudfare and demanded they show up in Spain to answer to accusations. They executives in California must have been laughing like crazy.

Seriously? Cloudflare covers like, 25% of the internet now.  And that is blocked because people pirate football??  Insane.

Seems that it breaks loads of workflows:
https://www.reddit.com/r/docker/comments/1sjio1g/no_one_in_spain_can_docker_pull_right_now_because/

Spanish "justice" lives in another world. There was a similar case where a judge ordered Telegram blocked but the protests made him go back on it after just a few days.

https://protonvpn.com/blog/spain-telegram-block

On Friday, March 22, 2024, a Spanish National High Court judge ordered internet service providers (ISPs) in Spain to block access to Telegram, but this ruling was suspended on March 25.

The ruling was made in response to a complaint by Atresmedia, EGEDA, Mediaset, and Telefonica, some of the country’s most prominent media companies, that the privacy-focused messaging app is being used to distribute copyrighted content that belongs to them.

There are many web sites affected by the blocking of cloudflare but for now it continues on soccer days and it makes some sites unusable. It is just crazy that they damage the rights of the majority just to protect the rights of a few. This is the equivalent of "there are pickpockets in the underground so therefore we order the underground closed".

[soldar]

If you want to interact with any bank or whoever, you need to install an app on your phone and you need to have a Google or Apple account to download and install the app.

No one told that to the major UK high street bank that I use.

I don't have any banking app installed on any of my devices, and I manage to 'interact' with them just fine. Even when things go pear-shaped (such as when the chip in my bank card failed and I required access to emergency funds and a new card).

It therefore 'depends', on where you live and who you choose to bank with.

I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the use of smartphone apps.

And many banks, especially online type banks, require the use of their apps and do not have web interface.

Also many government agencies have apps that must be downloaded through Google (or Apple) and this rubs me the wrong way. I find it to be very wrong that a government makes have a Google account so I can interact with the government. The government should not depend on Google. This is just wrong.

Google has a degree of monopoly power which should not be allowed. The first thing I would do is force them to allow the download of Apps without the need to have a Google account.

[NE666]

I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the use of smartphone apps.

And many banks, especially online type banks, require the use of their apps and do not have web interface.

Also many government agencies have apps that must be downloaded through Google (or Apple) and this rubs me the wrong way. I find it to be very wrong that a government makes have a Google account so I can interact with the government. The government should not depend on Google. This is just wrong.

Google has a degree of monopoly power which should not be allowed. The first thing I would do is force them to allow the download of Apps without the need to have a Google account.

Similarly, I thought that my point was clear too. I don't have any banking smartphone apps installed and I still am able to have a fully functional relationship with any of a number of major banks.

To choose to use a bank which only offers access via dedicated smartphone app is exactly that, a personal choice, and also a choice by said bank as to how it wishes to deliver it services.  I fail to see how it constitutes 'monopoly power' being exerted by Google.