89
Systemd v261-rc1 is out with the 'birth date field' (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 months ago* by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
108 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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 3 months ago (27 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 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Did you ignore the comment in the github where it, and I quote "Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.". Yes it is optional NOW, but this is in preparation of laws that make it legally Mandatory. Don't down play this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (6 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 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    California's AB-1043 already passed, so we get to bitch about it now. Thanks for your support.

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

    Oh so you are now forced to fill in the field?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    In California Jan 1st 2027, effectively yes. Please read AB-1043. All of this information is present there. It functionally forces any systemd‑based OS to populate it in order to comply with the law’s mandatory age‑collection requirements. It's literally in the bill. Next time, just fucking read it, damn. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What you quote is the justification why a new field should be added. You can't just say e.g. a Wardrobe number should be added without justifying it, otherwise it won't be accepted. You can say a Wardrobe number should be added because recent scientific developments suggest that some wardrobes open up new worlds, so it became necessary to extend the address field.

    This doesn't mean systemd would enforce anything or go into the politics of certain jurisdictions. It just enables distros to use this field, and it's up to the distros what they want to do with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Yeah just because they build cages for kids in the desert near the border doesn't mean anything's going to happen! It's just optional infrastructure in case you want to put your kids in a cage. It's totally voluntary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    There are genuinely useful use cases for it, and unlike what you suggest it is completely harmless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Is everyone ignoring the direct quote in the orginal post that is referring to laws (California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025)) that are going to force you to verify your age?

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

    No; I think these bills are terrible and should be resisted. But the outrage about (what is effectively) a database on your pc to store information that itself doesn't do anything is ridiculous.

    If abyone wants or needs to implement a system like that (could be for work,for example), that's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is the existence of the laws in the first place, and they shouldn't be resisted with (just) technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So you support adding a field for your SSN too? It's just going to be stored in a database on your PC so why not??

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

    I get what you're saying, but I think the strong objection is that implementing this now, right when these BS laws are being put into place, goes against one of the fundamental principles that Linux is built on. And doing this is a willful action toward capitulating to Big Brother - because we all know this doesn't stop with just put your b-day in and we will just trust you. This is a stepping stone toward more and more control and verified ID. Any part of the Linux community that does not openly defy this and stand against it will invariably be looked at as traitorous and collaborator. And if you take a moment and think about what this community stands for (yes, there's a philosophy it's not just software; there are very distinct ethical principles represented by Linux, regardless whether you dismiss this or not), it's clear that this adding of the field now, to accommodate this Big Brother shit, is dispicable in the extreme.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Not invested enough to be for or against it personally; just curious...

    What are the user-beneficial use cases for it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I could imagine a parental control setup using this information, for example. Linux is really behind in this regard and it's time it started catching up IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •