47
Systemd v261-rc1 is out with the 'birth date field' (lemmings.world)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For those interested on the question of age verification and GNU/Linux: be aware that Systemd v261-rc1 was recently released. It now implements an optional birth date field in the JSON user database (see second item under "Other changes").

The implementation of this field was prompted by age-verification or -attestation laws.

(Age-verification status of Open Source Operating Systems.)

Writeup by @pglpm@lemmy.ca

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 44 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

Personally identifying information here, but I don't mind telling you all that my exact time of birth was 1970-01-01-00:00:00.000000.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
    • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Yes, right next to the fields for your full name and address, all of which are optional. It’s a total nothingburger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Oh damn i didn’t realise there was something comparable already in there.

    Do you have the associated laws that precipitated those changes, i can't seem to find any reference to them ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Miss me with this "slippery slope" BS.
    Having a standardized place to store the DOB is a good thing and it should have been there even before these laws.
    And if some users want to comply with those laws, then they should have a way to do it.
    If anybody actually tries to make this a hard requirement (which isn't going to happen), then you can bitch about it at that time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    missed one from before :

    If anybody actually tries to make this a hard requirement (which isn’t going to happen), then you can bitch about it at that time.

    You mean aside from the laws this change was specifically implemented for....the ones you mentioned....those ones ?
    Is there some other example of a hard requirement you need ?

    I was already bitching about it, but now i have your permission it feels extra special.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    So......not a comparable situation then, ok.

    but hey, if you want to argue with yourself about a slippery slope no one mentioned, who am i to stop you?

    It seems you are having a good time with it, congrats.

    edit : salty downvotes aren't a replacement for a coherent argument, they are however, entertaining.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I feel bad for the dev. People really harassed him when the PR was opened.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Probably because he was doing it in earnest compliance with government surveillance. There's no other reason to implement this now. I don't feel bad for him; he knew exactly what he was doing.

    In and of itself, it's not a bad feature, but I don't think it needs to be added, let alone right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Idk how many times we have to go over preemptive compliance with fascism before you all get it 🤦

    Don't expect any help when the field is enforced with a TPM signed by MS, otherwise 95% of the web won't let you in, because you can't verify with your government ID linked phone app that needs an OS level verification step.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Miss me with this "slippery slope" BS.
    Having a standardized place to store the DOB is a good thing and it should have been there even before these laws.
    And if some users want to comply with those laws, then they should have a way to do it.
    If anybody actually tries to make this a hard requirement (which isn't going to happen), then you can bitch about it at that time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    Reading the comments I'm glad to see that the outrage crowd has left, last month they were swarming this topic heavily.

    (Well, they seem to have limited themselves to downvoting at least)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I understand their position but disagree with the tactics.

    Yes, the age verification laws are incredibly bad for various reasons. I do not support them in any way.

    However, they do exist and services are required to comply with them. Many services in this position use Linux and systemd. On those systems, systemd is the location where user data like this would be stored. So, from a software engineering perspective it only makes sense to include a field to handle this.

    People were taking this engineering decision and treating as if it were a proxy for age verification laws. They were doxxing the developer and the comments were borderline inciting violence (and some not borderline at all). That's the part I take issue with.

    It's slacktivisim.

    Effectively fighting against age verification requires engaging with the political system, not spamming toxic comments on social media. The fight against age verification isn't going to be won inside of git repos and no progress is made by attacking volunteer developers.

    You're right that it is an important issue, but the people that show up just to be toxic and violent are not doing the cause any favors and should be shunned from the community. These people were not actually members of our community, they were tourists following the outrage train and have since moved on to other topics for their next hit of outrage and self-righteousness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yeah, and I'm on your team on the important topic.

    My perspective on the systemd change is that in open source software it is impossible for any project to force me to do anything that I don't want to do. If the field ever becomes non-optional then I'll use a different init system.

    To me, this is just engineers making engineering decisions in a way that is the least impactful for people not participating in the age verification nonsense.

    Seeing people actively targeting the humans behind the update is the part that has motivated me to speak out. I don't think your position is wrong in any way, just some of the people sharing that perspective were being actively toxic and harmful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent