As others have pointed out, this is just a foot in the door. There's also a part of the law this article doesn't cover that requires EVERY application to query this information on every launch, regardless of whether or not the application has any age related limitations.

The language I found was:

> when the application is downloaded and launched

So it looks like the law only requires it on first launch. Which makes sense if the application can only be run from that one account. Apps that can be launched from multiple accounts are not singled out in the law, but the spirt of the law would have you checking what account is launching the app and are they in the correct age range.

That's not a guarantee. It's up to how the courts interpret that and. Given that this law is meant to handle a moving target like age, I fully expect them to interpret it as its disjunctive form.

The term "application" is explicitly defined in the bill and has a far narrower scope than just the word "application" on it's own means.

Far narrower is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your response.

> (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.

If your device can connect to a covered application store, every application on your computer must follow this.

Keep in mind this forced parental control system in the OS is supposedly because of app stores.

So we're already pretty deep in the law deciding what shape of computing you're allowed to do. What makes you think it will stop here?

No but then the next step is "well we need a way to enforce it because people are just lying about their age".

I guess let me show a slope I found over here, just past the boiling frogs, watch your footing though, it's recently been greased and is quite steep.

I was just at some .gov site from another HN post. It asked are you Over 18, I clicked No out of curiosity. Showed Access Denied, but the buttons stayed. I clicked Yes, and got in. I don't attribute to stupidity that which is clear malice. They'd don't actually give a flying fuck about what "kids" can get to, they only care about controlling everyone, of every age, as much as they possibly can.

Similar thing while printing postal labels. “Does this package contain any explosives” and I fat fingered yes. Tells me explosives can’t be mailed. Go back, say “no,” print label.

I agree, I don’t like it as much as you do. I’m just saying nothing short of a mandated TPM will actually enforce this. I think they know that.

I think this is mostly for show to stay relevant wrt. What is happening in the courts. This is the Same play as it always been for registration “are you over the age of 13?”

Which begs the question if Microsoft's stubborn insistence on TPM 2.0 for Windows 11 to operate was something planned out in advance of this law being proposed.

I read a FUD somewhere about Cinavia (the sound-muting DRM) being implemented on OS level by implementing it on SGX enclave level. That obviously didn't happen, but imagine if TPM was used for that too (or similar DRM).

How does a TPM stop people from lying about their age?

Overton window.

Wedge.

Then ratchet.