To any one who wants to continue the discussion, it should be a prerequisite that you actually read AB 1043.
Much of the discussion here is fuelled by people who have not read the bill at all, and do not seem to understand legal principles.
Officially, I have not read it because the link to
is not reachable through Tor browser and I refuse to be informed through censored channels for the convenience of the censor. I also have no obligation to be informed about how “the land of the free” is willing to limit my freedom and that of the whole world because “we are the best and greatest nation in the world”.
Unofficially, AB-1043 is rendered meaningless by the lack of definition of its core subject - “operating system”. It talks about “operating system provider” but does not define what operating system is. This creates room for interpretation. I have negotiated and signed enough international agreements to be careful about any such detail.
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
According to this nonsense, every user is also a provider, because he “controls the operating system software” on whatever device. Also what is “general purpose computing device”? Who defines what “general purpose” means? Or is an wrist watch (incl. mechanical) a mobile device - why not? It is a device and it is mobile. Etc.
(h) “Signal” means age bracket data sent by a real-time secure application programming interface or operating system to an application.
Alright. What is “secure application programming interface”? As discussed in various threads on this forum, everyone who understand security knows very well the threat model question, because security needs context to be evaluated in. Otherwise it is just another abstract term with no meaning.
And so on.