▲ 406 ▼ GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating systems — group says it will never require personal information (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 5 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/android@lemmy.world 15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago (1 child) if the userbase of graphene reached critical mass in California, I wouldn't be surprised if the state banned bootloader unlocking permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) I feel like thats extremely unlikely to happen, at least banning bootloader unlocking. I'm sure a law could come up eventually, but in order to legally block bootloader unlocking they'd end up banning most consumer and enterprise PCs and SBCs. (Not to mention, how would you enforce this when every state around you would not have this restriction; OEMs will not create a California specific SKU.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child) keep in mind these laws aren't meant to be enforceable, they are meant to prolong oppressed people's sentences or give the state a reason to raid your home for dissent permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cadekat@pawb.social 1 point 5 months ago Huh? While the Venn diagram overlap of people who are oppressed/dissidents and bootloader programmers is non-empty, the point of these laws would be to prevent the sale of devices with unlockable bootloaders, not too arrest anyone who does the unlocking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child) I feel like thats extremely unlikely to happen, at least banning bootloader unlocking. I'm sure a law could come up eventually, but in order to legally block bootloader unlocking they'd end up banning most consumer and enterprise PCs and SBCs. (Not to mention, how would you enforce this when every state around you would not have this restriction; OEMs will not create a California specific SKU.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child) keep in mind these laws aren't meant to be enforceable, they are meant to prolong oppressed people's sentences or give the state a reason to raid your home for dissent permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cadekat@pawb.social 1 point 5 months ago Huh? While the Venn diagram overlap of people who are oppressed/dissidents and bootloader programmers is non-empty, the point of these laws would be to prevent the sale of devices with unlockable bootloaders, not too arrest anyone who does the unlocking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child) keep in mind these laws aren't meant to be enforceable, they are meant to prolong oppressed people's sentences or give the state a reason to raid your home for dissent permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cadekat@pawb.social 1 point 5 months ago Huh? While the Venn diagram overlap of people who are oppressed/dissidents and bootloader programmers is non-empty, the point of these laws would be to prevent the sale of devices with unlockable bootloaders, not too arrest anyone who does the unlocking. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cadekat@pawb.social 1 point 5 months ago Huh? While the Venn diagram overlap of people who are oppressed/dissidents and bootloader programmers is non-empty, the point of these laws would be to prevent the sale of devices with unlockable bootloaders, not too arrest anyone who does the unlocking. permalink fedilink source parent