The coordinated effort worked. When lawmakers finalized Colorado SB26-051, they added Section 6-30-105(e) to the text. This specific clause waives compliance for operating systems and applications distributed under licenses that allow copying, modifying, and redistributing without platform-imposed technical restrictions. Why the Section 6-30-105(e) Exemption Protects Decentralized Tech

This exemption establishes a formal legislative precedent for the tech industry. It legally shields free and open-source operating systems from hardware-level age attestation laws that closed ecosystems like iOS and Windows will soon have to follow.

  • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Can you give a source for this?

    I’m presuming the QR uses the advertiser ID, which can be changed.

    Phone number would be GDPR, so I don’t think that can be used.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I’m not in a GPDR jurisdiction, but if memory serves, is there not some clause preventing service providers for compelling me to “willingly” provide information to access the service, similar to a “duress” situation?

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          There is something like that but I’m not sure it really has the force we all wanted it to. I don’t know if it’s been tested in court yet, but the optimistic people thought it would ban any kind of “be tracked or else you have to pay”, but I believe a lot of services are operating exactly this way.