140
Birthdate field under discussion also in Arch Linux (github.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Add a required birth date prompt (YYYY-MM-DD) to the user creation flow, stored as a systemd userdb JSON drop-in at /etc/userdb/.user on the target system.

Motivation

Recent age verification laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc. require platforms to verify user age. Collecting birth date at install time ensures Arch Linux is compliant with these regulations.

This is just a pull request, no changes yet.

The pull-request discussion thread has been locked, just like it happened for the similar thread in Systemd, owing to the amount of negative comments...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

and it happens exactly as the people whose claim is being denied with “slippery slope” fallacy said

But this is the crux of the fallacy. What evidence is anyone providing that there is indeed an insidious chain of events we are enabling by adding the birthdate field? Are there examples of cases similar to this in history?

EDIT: I can tell people are getting emotional about this because I'm being down voted for just asking a question that elaborates the point someone is making.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    The justification of the slippery slope is pretty simple.

    They ask to add in a DoB field that must be filled out and reported at all times. So we add it into our systems and say no big deal. If you hate it put down your birthday as 1900-01-01 and call it a day.

    But what is the problem with a self reported, unconfirmed field like this? It is utterly useless BECAUSE it is a self reported, unconfirmed field. It doesn't solve any problem AND it doesn't provide any real personal information. So why even ask for it?

    The two options are malicious intent and stupidity that tech can't be worked around.

    We can skip the latter as stupid people will always be stupid. So the former, malicious intent. When they point out that this new law isn't actually fixing things because of the fact people are lying about their age they will inevitably say we need government IDs added to the system. They will not only make sure you are the correct age for content, but know WHO is viewing such content and they will be tracking it.

    Now you might say, wait there is a third option, benevolent people actually wanting safety. Creating a system where personal information is mandatory to your interaction with the internet creates a security target that we all know cannot be covered. And we also know that all tech can be broken so kids will find a way around this stuff. Using your parent's ID, a globally shared fake ID, hacking the protocol for certification. they will get around it.

    The slope is slippery because the only options are

    • Stupid => which falls down the hill on accident
    • Benevolent => which falls down the hill because its a vertical cliff face that can't be scaled
    • Malicious => they push you down the hill because they are assholes
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    yes. every time in the history of gnu software when a function is added without a purpose its for a later feature.

    otherwise there is no need for the form? since when do we leave empty forms in software that can be used to store strings, that hold no meaning...

    only two uses for this. to implement the full API later or to have a string the user normally does not see that becomes a perfect place to store malware. full stop.

    complying with the API is a act of absolute stupidity...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent