zlacker

Requiring device side child safe modes would be far further reaching and likely mean your cannot run your own software anymore. Requiring providers of adult content to check id is much more limited in scope.

>>ndrisc+(OP)
Not if it is enabled by the buyer, which I took to be the point.

Mobile phone subscriptions in the UK go the other way: By default they filter some content. If you tell the phone company to turn it off, they do. It's less invasive than this law because you don't need to tell them why you want it turned off, but still more draconian than if we could turn on a child safe mode that e.g. then required a pin or something to disable.

>>vidarh+e5
The requirement that such functionality be available is likely to preclude FOSS. e.g. in the US, California has a bill[0] that would require anyone distributing software to ensure it hooks into an age verification API in the operating system, and requires device manufacturers to provide such an API, which appears to me to say computer manufacturers can't let you install Linux and developers of any software including FOSS must do these checks.

I can't imagine that it would pass as-is since on its face it seems to apply to all computers and all software including things like nginx or nftables that the entire modern economy relies on, but who knows?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

>>ndrisc+(OP)
This is 1000000% where we are going between Google moving away from AOSP and Samsung removing the ability to unlock bootloaders altogether.

There is a conspiracy and it's being rolled out. There was already some country that declared anyone running non-standard OSes on their phones are highly suspect.

>>ndrisc+5c
It's possibly some badly written requirements would, but there's zero reason why it'd need to preclude FOSS if such restrictions are written to be under the buyers control presuming they demonstrate age, as all they require is a way to restrict reinstalls and replacements of whatever software produces sufficient controls without an unlock code.

It doesn't need e.g. code signing or anything else of the sort.

To be clear, I think all of this is a massive overreach - my point is only that you can achieve the claimed aim with far less invasive means.

That, if anything, makes the chosen idiocy even more troubling to me, as either they're incompetent, don't care at all about the implications, or there are unstated aims.