88
Ubuntu 26.10 Looks To Strip Its GRUB Bootloader To The Bare Minimum For Better Security (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

Why would they exactly? Adding an age field would not likely have any impact on a bootloader. Also I'm not really sure what you reactionaries are thinking will happen. That laws will get passed but Linux as a whole will just refuse to follow the laws? It's a very incomplete thought process you all are stuck in. If the laws get passed, the entire Linux community is not just going to be able to ignore them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    I don't like the idea on general, but I agree with the developer whose thread I read that suggested systemd was a good place to store the data so we don't end up with several layers from kernel to distro publisher to DE trying to roll their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    I agree with you that there have been a lot of reactionary takes to this news. But I do think that many if not all Linux distributions can choose to ignore it, yes. I think it's inherently unenforceable. How is California supposed to have say over a random guy in the Netherlands who makes a distro? Even a distros based in California should be able to put a disclaimer that this OS is not to be used in the state of California. Maybe make a California version with age verification at worst. And then everyone will proceed to use the non age verification version because what is the government going to do? Kick in every door and manually check if your computer OS is in compliance? Even if they went to that extent (they won't), what is the criteria for criminally charging someone? What if you are just visiting California, do you have to reinstall your OS for a few days?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I honestly don't know what enforcement actions would be taken, but I do think a company like Canonical could be held liable for anything seen as defying such new laws. Maybe you're right. That would make me happy if you are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    That does seem to be the intention, to hold companies liable, I just dont see how that would possibly work. Similar situations have happened with DMCA copyright stuff. Some foreign pirate sites were fined by the American government, and the sites literally told them to fuck off.

    And what if some countries create laws that state you cannot recklessly gather users' personal information? Who do you obey? Do you pay a fine no matter what? Are you banned in one country? How would that be enforced?

    Not only do I fundamentally disagree with what they're trying to do, it simply doesn't make sense in the first place, nor does their implementation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I agree that a disclaimer might be the simplest path, but may not always be an option. I recall reading that for at least one distro their license didn't allow for geographic disclaimers.

    Having a date field that defaults to 1/1/1970 or having the API needing to be toggled on (with a notice that California users may required to turn it on) could both be privacy respecting options.

    Adding these features in a way that's intentionally unhelpful isn't necessarily rolling over, but may shield against lawsuits (IANAL).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    That's certainly possible. It's hard to know for sure how it will look in practice, or if they will even attempt to enforce it in the first place. So many laws are "feel good" laws where nobody wants to say they're against protecting the children but nobody actually gives a shit about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent