Not exactly. They can always take this one step further and make it more difficult to use anything but closed OSs for fundamental applications, like banking. It could come via an ID requirement where authentication goes through some complicated process with proprietary hardware and drivers. That could also come in phases, such as mandating all desktop/laptop distributors require it prior to distribution. Then the tech giants can market it like, “never require a password again, if you have…” effectively marketing back the convenience they helped take. Sooner or later, it’s a piece of shit system that banks and jobs rely on, everybody ends up accepting it while complaining that it makes a terrible password for obvious reasons (ref: your Social Security card).

In a perfect world this means that closed ecosystem operating systems. Like windows, Mac and android. Who have an unfair amount of control and power over their customer base. Will be held to a higher standard by the law.

Since the potential for abuse is higher with windows or android then say arch or fedora.

That increased control should come at a downside of increased responsibility. There's nothing stopping Microsoft or Google from releasing control and becoming more transparent in theory.

So if everything was in magical fairy land. This sort of enforced liability would push software towards more open standards with less burden of responsibility on the creators and more responsibility on the user.

Since really that's where the responsibility should mostly be. It should be the user or parents of the user who decide how a system is used. And it should be the users responsibility to ensure they are adhering to laws and regulations.

The fun part of open source is that someone smarter than me will inevitably just update the existing spoofing tools to include whatever checks those platforms are using.

Fuck the platforms. We'll make our own.

"Thank you for not forcing me to participate in your getting-kicked-in-the-balls program... But perhaps just don't?"

Because it's difficult, confusing, or sometimes both. I'm not from CO so I can't speak to whether or not that part is confusing or not (though I'd not be surprised if the average citizen wasn't even aware this was an option for them.) The hard part would be that you have to collect signatures which eats up time.

Which isn't to say you shouldn't do it. I think it's a great idea!

There may have also been some big money lobbyists from companies like Google, Amazon, etc, that pointed out how much money it would have cost their poor shareholders to implement.

Ding ding