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
[–] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

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 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

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

    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
  • [–] 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 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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 2 child comments
    •