Possible US legislative threat to Pinephone?

[Westslope]

Hello, I stumbled upon something here in the US that might be a concern to Pinephone and users of non Android/iOS phones.
There are organizations and people pushing for US States to pass legislation to mandate "smartphones" and "tablets" come preloaded with family-friendly content filters by default.

While I'm not against the idea of having content filters to prevent minors from accessing hardcore pornography (labeled as "obscene material" in legislation), the way the proposed legislation is written makes it a criminal/fineable offense to sell devices that don't have such filters in place. While this may be a simple thing to do for Android and iOS, it seems like it may be a problem for librephones like Pinephone.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/po...-rcna73626

Here is the bill from Utah, which became law:
https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/hbillenr/HB0072.pdf

Here is a similar bill in Montana, which is in the legislative process. It has passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0349.htm

I wanted to post this here because my legalese is not great and to see what others think.
Maybe this won't be a problem for Pinephone and it's users, but if my understanding is correct, it could be.

[zetabeta]

Hello, I stumbled upon something here in the US that might be a concern to Pinephone and users of non Android/iOS phones.
There are organizations and people pushing for US States to pass legislation to mandate "smartphones" and "tablets" come preloaded with family-friendly content filters by default.

While I'm not against the idea of having content filters to prevent minors from accessing hardcore pornography (labeled as "obscene material" in legislation), the way the proposed legislation is written makes it a criminal/fineable offense to sell devices that don't have such filters in place. While this may be a simple thing to do for Android and iOS, it seems like it may be a problem for librephones like Pinephone.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/po...-rcna73626

Here is the bill from Utah, which became law:
https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/hbillenr/HB0072.pdf

Here is a similar bill in Montana, which is in the legislative process. It has passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0349.htm

I wanted to post this here because my legalese is not great and to see what others think.
Maybe this won't be a problem for Pinephone and it's users, but if my understanding is correct, it could be.

one reason i am shying away from android is preloaded stuff from google and oem, also bootloader (half-)locks. usually i'm more worried about corporate power rather than government power. however, this starts to sound going too far. even those preloaded stuff could be used for innocuous purposes, it is still more power to the government and corporations. sooner or later, it will be abused by powers. also i don't think those preloaded stuff work as intended, meaning does not do the job or blocks too much.

someone pays for these controls, ultimately it will be device buyers.

u.k. tried to establish a law which put pornography content filters to internet service providers. it could be deactivated, but default would have been activated. (that law never passed, in my knowledge.)

these controls have to be done at software level, so how it relates to pinephone. pine org may not be directly liable for software.

i said it here some time ago. in case of coronavirus apps, i think government has temporary right to track users. but it needs to happen with separate devices with open specs and open source software with own cloud without no connection to private corporations. (that temporary time has passed). however, forcing some third party apps to our devices is just wrong.

in regards to 18 years old and older, these laws are just totally wrong. what is about pornography, politicians score cheap points trying to play a good guy. i think there are more worrisome things than this.

disclaimer:
parents have right to supervise their minors and their devices, but it isn't necessarily good idea in all cases.

[KC9UDX]

The problem is always government. If government mandated schools didn't require internet access, parents could keep their children off the internet, and there'd be no necessity for government mandated content filtering (which will most certainly backfire and require more government intervention.)

[Westslope]

Hello, I stumbled upon something here in the US that might be a concern to Pinephone and users of non Android/iOS phones.
There are organizations and people pushing for US States to pass legislation to mandate "smartphones" and "tablets" come preloaded with family-friendly content filters by default.

While I'm not against the idea of having content filters to prevent minors from accessing hardcore pornography (labeled as "obscene material" in legislation), the way the proposed legislation is written makes it a criminal/fineable offense to sell devices that don't have such filters in place. While this may be a simple thing to do for Android and iOS, it seems like it may be a problem for librephones like Pinephone.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/po...-rcna73626

Here is the bill from Utah, which became law:
https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/hbillenr/HB0072.pdf

Here is a similar bill in Montana, which is in the legislative process. It has passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0349.htm

I wanted to post this here because my legalese is not great and to see what others think.
Maybe this won't be a problem for Pinephone and it's users, but if my understanding is correct, it could be.

one reason i am shying away from android is preloaded stuff from google and oem, also bootloader (half-)locks. usually i'm more worried about corporate power rather than government power. however, this starts to sound going too far. even those preloaded stuff could be used for innocuous purposes, it is still more power to the government and corporations. sooner or later, it will be abused by powers. also i don't think those preloaded stuff work as intended, meaning does not do the job or blocks too much.

someone pays for these controls, ultimately it will be device buyers.

u.k. tried to establish a law which put pornography content filters to internet service providers. it could be deactivated, but default would have been activated. (that law never passed, in my knowledge.)

these controls have to be done at software level, so how it relates to pinephone. pine org may not be directly liable for software.

i said it here some time ago. in case of coronavirus apps, i think government has temporary right to track users. but it needs to happen with separate devices with open specs and open source software with own cloud without no connection to private corporations. (that temporary time has passed). however, forcing some third party apps to our devices is just wrong.

in regards to 18 years old and older, these laws are just totally wrong. what is about pornography, politicians score cheap points trying to play a good guy. i think there are more worrisome things than this.

disclaimer:
parents have right to supervise their minors and their devices, but it isn't necessarily good idea in all cases.

A problem I see with this legislation is the people who wrote it think it's "just turning on the filter option in Android and iOS". They don't seem to have a clue that there are other operating systems or how the technology actually works. The legislation is therefore obtuse in defining and implementing what they're trying to do. Does it mean shipping a device without an OS would be illegal, since it has no filter installed?

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Definitions. For the purposes of [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1)        "Activate" means the process of powering on an electronic device and associating it with a new user account.
(2)        "Electronic device" means a tablet or a smart phone.
(3)        "Internet" has the same meaning as provided in 2-17-551.
(4)        "Manufacturer" means a person that is engaged in the business of manufacturing an electronic device and has a commercial registered agent as defined in 35-7-102 and a patent.
(5)        "Obscenity filter" means software installed on an electronic device that is capable of preventing the electronic device from accessing or displaying obscenity, pursuant to 45-8-201, through the internet or any applications owned and controlled by the manufacturer and installed on the device.
(6)        "Smart phone" means an electronic device that combines a cell phone with a hand-held computer, typically offering internet access, data storage, text, and e-mail capabilities.
(7)        "Tablet" means an electronic device equipped with a mobile operating system, touchscreen display, and rechargeable battery, typically offering internet access.

The definition should probably read more like:

(6)        "Smart phone" means a consumer retail electronic device that combines a cell phone with a hand-held computer and equipped with a commercially developed, consumer-oriented mobile operating system, typically offering internet access, data storage, text messaging, voice calling, and e-mail capabilities.

(7)        "Tablet" means a consumer retail electronic device equipped with a commercially developed, consumer-oriented mobile operating system, touchscreen display, and rechargeable battery, typically offering internet access.

[diederik]

There are organizations and people pushing for US States to pass legislation to mandate "smartphones" and "tablets" come preloaded with family-friendly content filters by default.

... politicians score cheap points trying to play a good guy. ...

Someone made a 'toot' not too long ago which was something like this:

Can we please stop using 'mom' to indicate a tech-illiterate person?
And use congress-person instead?



I'll refrain from commenting on the political aspect, but I want to urge you both to take some time to think through the (long-term) consequences.

[Kevin Kofler]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)

Pine64 does not operate off the US, so it will not be a big problem for them. It may make it harder for you as a user to get a PinePhone though. Since the proposed legislation appears to be about what comes preloaded by default when the device is sold, you are is unlikely to get into trouble for owning or using a PinePhone. But buying one could become more complicated for residents of the states with such legislation.

[Westslope]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.)

Pine64 does not operate off the US, so it will not be a big problem for them. It may make it harder for you as a user to get a PinePhone though. Since the proposed legislation appears to be about what comes preloaded by default when the device is sold, you are is unlikely to get into trouble for owning or using a PinePhone. But buying one could become more complicated for residents of the states with such legislation.

Indeed, I'm still trying to understand how it would actually work and how it would be enforced.



The Montana bill defines "Manufacturer" in a specific way, but if I look through the code, it sounds like the bill would only affect manufacturers that have a "Commercial registered agent" in the state, which I doubt Pine64 or a lot of other small manufactures do. This would lead me to believe that non-domestic phones would be unaffected if ordered through the Web. I'm not a lawyer either, so this stuff just confuses me the more I read it.

Code:

(4)        "Manufacturer" means a person that is engaged in the business of manufacturing an electronic device and has a commercial registered agent as defined in 35-7-102 and a patent.

Code:

35-7-102. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, as used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(2) "Commercial registered agent" means an individual or a domestic or foreign entity listed under [url=https://www.leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0350/chapter_0070/part_0010/section_0060/0350-0070-0010-0060.html]35-7-106[/url].

Code:

35-7-106. Listing of commercial registered agent. (1) An individual or a domestic or foreign entity may become listed as a commercial registered agent by filing with the secretary of state a commercial registered agent listing statement signed by or on behalf of the person that states:

(a) the name of the individual or the name, type, and jurisdiction of organization of the entity;

(b) that the person is in the business of serving as a commercial registered agent in this state; and

(c) the address of a place of business of the person in this state to which service of process and other notice and documents being served on or sent to entities represented by it may be delivered.

(2) If the name of a person filing a commercial registered agent listing statement is not distinguishable on the records of the secretary of state from the name of another commercial registered agent listed under this section, the person shall adopt a fictitious name that is distinguishable and use that name in its statement and when it does business in this state as a commercial registered agent.

(3) A commercial registered agent listing statement takes effect on filing.

(4) The secretary of state shall note the filing of the commercial registered agent listing statement in the index of filings maintained by the secretary of state for each entity represented by the registered agent at the time of the filing. The statement has the effect of deleting the address of the registered agent from the registered agent filing of each of those entities.

[Westslope]

Here is a similar bill in Montana, which is in the legislative process. It has passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0349.htm

Update: This bill was recently "tabled in committee", so it is effectively dead in the process unless a motion to "take from the table" is made.

[KC9UDX]

Here is a similar bill in Montana, which is in the legislative process. It has passed the House and is currently in a Senate committee.
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0349.htm

Update: This bill was recently "tabled in committee", so it is effectively dead in the process unless a motion to "take from the table" is made.

Thank God for the few checks and balances we still have.

[Eugo]

(6)        "Smart phone" means a consumer retail electronic device that combines a cell phone with a hand-held computer and equipped with a commercially developed, consumer-oriented mobile operating system, typically offering internet access, data storage, text messaging, voice calling, and e-mail capabilities.

(7)        "Tablet" means a consumer retail electronic device equipped with a commercially developed, consumer-oriented mobile operating system, touchscreen display, and rechargeable battery, typically offering internet access.

There. PP software and OS are not commercially developed. We're in the „not applicable“ category.