For the record - it's not a complaint, just a remark - i'm 95% sure the website text is written by Claude. Nothing wrong with that but some people may be annoyed by that, and I don't see a disclaimer about it.
It's the first law that I'm aware of that legally requires an automated system that you own and operate to snitch on you at any time, to anyone who asks, without asking your permission.
For the moment, it only has to report a piece of data that you are free to lie about. For the moment.
But you do give it permission. The data is only shared when you either install or open an application. Both things that you need to initiate. Nothing in the law requires that the data be sent off device. Ideally all of this checking would happen on device. And for those apps that don't meet that standard, don't use them.
I assume that you must adhere to 100% of the terms and conditions of every single thing that has them, then. After all, you agree to those terms and conditions before you use the product.
5
Ageless Linux - Software for Humans of Indeterminate Age | Spyke
cool malicious compliance xD
benevolent non-compliance
First time Ive heard about Milk-V Duo S. Interesting. Looks very cheap!
For the record - it's not a complaint, just a remark - i'm 95% sure the website text is written by Claude. Nothing wrong with that but some people may be annoyed by that, and I don't see a disclaimer about it.
This just seems like an attempt to get sued to challenge the law.
Funny the amount of work that people are putting into such a nothing burger of a law.
Edit: also interesting to see the critical meltdown our community has over a law that doesn't even require ID verification.
Edit 2: also I will be honest I did not read the entire home page. It is like 5 or 6 times longer than the law that it is complaining about.
It's like, why do you care if a cop searches your car or your apartment, if you got nothing to hide!
Edit: /s in case you thought I was as dumb as that comment lol
The law does not require giving the government any access to your system or even sending them any information. This is just false equivalency.
The New York version does require verification but for some reason nobody seems to be mentioning that
That is accurate and should absolutely be fought to the end. But the one that this "new" "distro" talks about is specifically the California one.
Almost like these things don't happen in a vacuum...
Unless you put a computer in the vacuum.
It's the first law that I'm aware of that legally requires an automated system that you own and operate to snitch on you at any time, to anyone who asks, without asking your permission.
For the moment, it only has to report a piece of data that you are free to lie about. For the moment.
But you do give it permission. The data is only shared when you either install or open an application. Both things that you need to initiate. Nothing in the law requires that the data be sent off device. Ideally all of this checking would happen on device. And for those apps that don't meet that standard, don't use them.
I assume that you must adhere to 100% of the terms and conditions of every single thing that has them, then. After all, you agree to those terms and conditions before you use the product.