Comment by dragonwriter
1 day ago
> It defines operating system in the law.
No, it doesn't.
It defines the following terms: "account holder", "age bracket data", "application", "child", "covered application store", "developer", "operating system provider", "signal", and "user".
> This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles.
Presumably, this based on reading the language that in the definition of "operating system developer", and then for some reason adding in "game consoles" (the actual language in both of those includes "a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing [device".
(I've also rarely seen such a poorly-crafted set of definitions; the definitions in the law are in several places logically inconsistent with the provisions in which they are applied, and in other places circular on their own or by way of mutual reference to other terms defined in the law, such that you cannot actually identify what the definitions include without first starting with knowledge of what they include.)
From the bill:
> "Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application
There is a reasonable argument that a linux distribution is, itself, a host application. This is clearly an argument against their intention... but makes perfect sense to me. With this argument, the law does not apply to pretty much any environment where the applications are scheduled and run by a supervising process, at least by my reading.
No operating system (including windows, which uses a translation layer in userspace — “host application”?) provides a windows-compatible kernel API.
So I guess that excludes all windows apps and app stores.
In typical jury trials, the jury is instructed that any terms not defined in the relevant statutes are to have their common-sense, ordinary meanings as understood by the jury. The jury is usually also selected to be full of reasonable, moderate people, and folks who are overly pedantic usually get excused during voir dire.
Do you really think a pool of 12 people off the street is going to consider an embedded system, wi-fi router, or traffic light as an "operating system" under this law? Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
Not sure why you are appealing to the rule on terms that aren’t defined, since the actual question is whether or not thet consider the vendor of the software powering the device as an “operating system vendor” which is, in fact, defined in the law, and the answer there seems to be hinge on whether or not they think it is a general purpose compute device, which would seem almost certain to be no for a traffic light, and likely to be no (but more debatable and potentially variable from instance to instance) in the other cases you list.
> Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?
Not sure what having accounts or users “as a common sense member if the public would understand them” is relevant to since, to the extent having a “user” is relevant in the law, it to is defined (albeit both counterintuitively and circularly) in the law, and having an “account” isn’t relevant to the law at all.
The jury is selected randomly. They try to weed out obvious kooks, but there is no attempt to make it either reasonable or moderate.
The hope is that twelve of your peers will at least avoid being able to persecute you for political goals. I hope neither of us ever has to find out.
Have you ever gone through jury selection? It isn't what you think it is.
3 replies →
MOST cases don't make it to jury. They're more likely to be resolved via motions and countermotions and the decisions of a jduge.
To dumb down "operating system" for normies, they're probably going to say something along the lines of "the software that makes your computer work.. like Windows." If it stays at that level, we'll have a specific, discrete definition in play.
A broader, equally correct definition could be "the software that makes technology work.. there's an operating system on your computer, your cell phone, your Alexa, and even your car." Then yes, some people will think of their Ring doorbell, the cash register at the coffee shop, and other embedded systems, even if they've never heard the word "embedded."
The definition that shows up will depend entirely on a) the context of the case and b) the savviness of the attorneys involved.
Not a bet I want to take.
Defendants can always opt for a judge to rule on the case.
At that point, what the law actually says matters a lot (unless the judge is corrupt, which is becoming more common in the US, but with corrupt judges, it doesn’t really matter how good or bad the laws is).
1 reply →
You'll be arrested for some weird law that doesn't make sense, but it's ok because a pool of 12 people off the street won't consider whatever random thing you did a real crime!