this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
490 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
82132 readers
3018 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No... The law literally says that if you make a good faith effort then you are not liable.
Also the 2500$ is only for negligent violations.
Look, I don't want linux to leave Cali. I have primarily used linux for the past 8 years and have no desire to use windows anymore than I have to. But, as you said, the linux community throwing their hands up and deciding to exit Cali and Colorado is just playing right into Microsoft's desires.
It used to be that my liability was to the people using my code. If I code badly, they won't use it, and I might be blocked from contributing to a project. That was the worst penalty that I faced for providing bad code.
Now, I might have to argue against a lawyer claiming my mistakes are negligence, and my efforts are in less than good faith, with financial penalties should they prevail.
They merely need to point to my opposition to this law as evidence that I am not acting "in good faith" to support it.
Throwing up our hands and exiting California and Colorado is playing into Microsoft's desires. It is also the only rational response should this law go into effect as planned. Which means the proper course of action is to denounce this idiot law, not lend it our support or rationalize the harm it causes.
Most practitioners of data security are aware of the severe dangers of fingerprinting users, and that is a hardline issue. Thus, in order to maintain their security practices, their only choice is to not collect this sort of info on users at any level. If they're delivering a security product with a built-in vulnerability, they're not delivering a security product. It's much better to just surrender one state until it invents sanity.