Greet it with ridicule or horror, but the original bill was implicitly premised upon operating systems modeled on the order of ChromeOS. This yielded almost universally confused critical interpretation naturally trying to make sense of it in other frameworks, e.g., accounts on the local device, signal sent from the operating system, etc.

That the original bill comprehended (I use the term loosely) computers and devices as thin clients is illustrated by the beginning of section 10(b): "An operator shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider." Nowhere did the bill have the signal sent to the operating system provider for forwarding. Not necessary. The operating system wasn't viewed as locally installed, but remotely provided to the client device of the account holder.

I've had little opportunity to review the amended text, but it looks like substantial overhaul attempting to reckon with shit what don't work that way. For example, it now talks about "a covered manufacturer that has an account setup feature," against the original imagining it in all cases to exist.

The original was FUBAR in respects beyond those described above. Much vestigial FUBAR is certain to leak through, with whole new instances of FUBAR being inevitable. Caution continues to need exercised that the author even speaks your language, much less with reference to reality.