Re: Practical suggestions for resolving the Age Verification problem

On 2026-03-10 05:28, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote:
> Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote:
> 
>> way their regulated already. Adding another category and applying 
>> appropriate
>> perms to match. It basically changes nothing in the way a system regulates
>> user categories now. I was simply suggesting adding another (age based)
>> category.
>> Perms can be set accordingly.
> 
> If you're going down that sort of route, why not just add a bunch of new
> groups to /etc/group:
> 
> not_verified_13:*:newuser1,newuser2
> not_verified_18:*:newuser3,newuser4
> not_verified_21:*:newuser5,newuser6
> 
> Of course, that would need to be manually altered when someone reaches an 
> age milestone,
> but that would be the same with an extra field.
> 
> Still (and this isn't directed at you), I think the whole thing is stupid 
> and doomed
> to failure.
That has been my stand from the beginning. It's untenable. Impossible to 
enforce. It's
a broad net. In hopes of (eventually) landing "something". This will cost 
anyone that
attempts to "[lay ball" untold amounts of legal fees. California id doomed to 
loose
their argument against the defendant. But the cost of arguing your case as a 
defendant
is still there.
My position is to get all the players to ignore them (California) or simply 
state that
we are no longer interested in doing business w/Californians. (very) simply 
put; They
want to control the internet. Previous government attempts have failed. This 
will be
no exception.

> 
> Besides, this would be moot for someone running a FreeBSD desktop, or other 
> system
> they control, and for things like web-based services that use a FreeBSD 
> backend, they'll
> already have higher level authorisation controls baked into the system.
> 
> So, it probably would only work for the small percentage of pre university 
> aged
> children who access remote unix systems to play nethack in the terminal! :-)
> 
> </bikeshedding>

--Chris