How is that even enforced?
How is that even enforced?
Doesn't seem unreasonable that computer OS's and/or web browsers be required to support the same.
That's not to say a regulation like this couldn't be done in a reasonable way, but it needs to be handled with care.
Things get way harder when you're talking about forcing the addition of user hostile features (like the bill described in the OP presumably is; blocking users from accessing a website that they want to access), because that creates a situation where vendors have to treat the device owner as a potentially hostile actor. I don't see any way you could enforce that without completely destroying users' freedom to run software of their choosing on their own device, no matter how the law is worded, and I wouldn't consider that "reasonable" under any circumstances.
Why?
Web browsers were designed from the start to show you only content you expressly requested. Notification APIs are still opt-in. A browser is primarily pull-oriented, whereas a phone was always bi-directional. Inverting this expectation for the browser is very much unwelcome.
Emphasis on narrow.
It’s completely unreasonable to have a broad scope direct communication channel between the government and my browser or OS.
For example, recently the law changed so that pedestrians had priority at 't' road junctions without traffic lights.
Ideally, every citizen would be send a small infographic showing the new law on the day it became law. They would click "okay" and go on with their day.
Instead, the government bought up TV ads and billboards across the country (very expensive) to try to get the message across - and still, months later, you have people honking horns and getting angry at pedestrians and drivers who don't know about the change.
1. Not every citizen possesses an SMS-capable device.
2. Many smartphone-enabled citizens don't want to be nagged by the government.
> Instead, the government bought up TV ads and billboards across the country
I don't watch TV ads. I haven't seen any of these billboards. And I didn't know there was anything unusual about the law on T-junctions in particular.
Well, not really. I don't own a car, and I haven't driven one for years.
But that's to ignore your point, which is that I'm ignorant of the law. Thing is, that's far from the only law I'm ignorant of; if every little change in the law had to be notified to all citizens via SMS, that channel would become so clogged as to be useless (nobody would check their messages).
That's hardly a backwards-incompatible change that needs to be actioned immediately.
My attention has already been torn to shreds for years via smartphone usage (I'm in an on-and-off recovery). I don't need the government adding their two pence into what's already a bad situation.
If they care so much, mail me. Physically. That both gets my attention, lets the government constant me via a much less intrusive channel, and staves off the bankruptcy of Royal Mail.
Don't look at your phone in the next five minutes, because Russia's invaded France and your iPhone goes ding.
Both you and me have been legally volunteered for conscription "at random".
And I wonder who's sons and daughters are magically missing from the man-power database, certainly not the engineers and politicians who built it. could never suggest such a thing is likely...
Bring it on, I say.
Applying that to browsers does seem unreasonable to me. IANAL but to my knowledge mobile OSs aren’t legally required to support the emergency alert features of the radio because there’s no direct way to legally force them to. They do so because of popular demand and indirect requirements from large customers.
And you can "require" what you like; unless you have real control, then you won't get what you "require".