166
Systemd preparing to comply with age verification laws (github.com)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by to c/linux@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/65555474

Fork time? Maybe all the anti-systemd zealots were right all along...

Edit: To address whether it is likely that this change will affect users: Gnome is planning a stronger dependence on userdb, the part of systemd where this change is being implemented. https://blogs.gnome.org/adrianvovk/2025/06/10/gnome-systemd-dependencies/

Final edit: The PR has been merged into main.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

@skyline2@lemmy.dbzer0.com @linux@lemmy.world

Brazilian here. I'm neither a lawyer nor a specialist, just someone who has read the Portuguese text from the Brazilian flavor of the ongoing worldwide age check set of laws.

I must note that the Brazilian age check law (Lei 15.211/2025) specifies "vedada a autodeclaração" (English: "self-declaring is forbidden"). This means that this kind of implementation, where age or birthday is an user input, wouldn't be compliant to Lei 15.211/2025, because it requires the age information to be assessed independently from the user whose age is being assessed. This means face biometrics, government-issued ID (in our case, CPF, CNH, Passaporte and similar) or "behaviorial analysis"... Anything but a "yes I'm 18" or "I was born in day month year", for those are self-declared and the Law says it's "not enough".

Someone should warn the systemd maintainers of this "Brazilian jabuticaba".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    OK. Fair point, but hear me out, his is this different than say user1 is admin who then verifies user2 by looking at id and says verified. sudo moduser user2 birthDate 'yyyy/mm/dd'

    And how is that different than I'm user1 and user2 and perform the operation myself.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is stupid. I'm also a bit offended about the flatpak comment.

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

    @dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.sdf.org @linux@lemmy.world

    How is this different than say user1 is admin who then verifies user2 by looking at id and says verified.

    As far as I understood (because the law is annoyingly and purposefully vague-worded), it wouldn't be the user1 the one verifying user2 precisely because both are users (despite their different system privileges). The law requires the "fornecedor de produtos e serviços de tecnologia da informação" (IT products and services supplier) to check the users's age, not the users themselves.

    In the end, it feels like the lawmakers are wishing for something akin to Windows or MacOS: the user must link to an online account, which is bound to the corporation, which is then the one who will do the KYC (know your customer) shenanigans, often by relying on third-party services (such as Persona and au10tix) to achieve this.

    To me, this is part of why MidnightBSD and Arch Linux 32-bits (and more to come) went nuclear and geoblocked Brazil: there's no way this can be feasible for distros not Ubuntu, Red Hat, that Amazon distro whose name I forgot, or similar distros underneath the umbrella of a fairly large corp.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that this is stupid.

    Yeah, I agree with you. This age check thing is stupid and, to be honest, extremely depressing as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent