Privacy

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

That was a breach in policy, btw.

parent

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

What do you mean? Systemd maintainers merged the PR and the founder blocked the revert. They have obviously some hidden agenda about this.

parent

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Complying with fascist laws is barely a “hidden” agenda in the NaziMerica.

At the least other inits have begun resisting these Nazi laws.

parent

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I was trying Artix with openrc yesterday in case I want to migrate

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 5 points 5 months ago

You are extremely welcome to journal your exploration in our community.

I was just point out there’s nothing hidden with Nazis acting Nazi. Everyone in SlopD is a Nazi.

parent

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Every thinkpad in my household is gonna use that!

parent

[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

when did systemd add or say they plan to add age verification?

parent

https://www.sambent.com/the-engineer-who-tried-to-put-age-verification-into-linux-5/

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Yeah there was some drama about it.

This blog explains the situation but also attacks the developer that did it and I do not think he is to blame here.

parent

[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

that isnt age verification though, it is not verifying the age; its just asking the user to input their age, something websites and apps have been doing for ages

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] endlesseden@pyfedi.deep-rose.org 4 points 5 months ago

That's the first step to it. SystemD doesn't need to store any private data like that. Like most changes, if it's done in stages, instead of all at once. It's much harder to revert...

parent

[–] gnuthing@lemmygrad.ml 1 point 5 months ago

Personally, I don't want my kid to use a device that is broadcasting their age in any way. Just makes them a target to Epstein bros. Going to a site that is asking age verification is different, there's a voluntary step there

parent

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 point 5 months ago

Yeah fair

parent

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 5 points 5 months ago

Nice to see principled devs!

[–] qualia@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

For completeness here goes the best steelman against GrapheneOS' abstention I could summarize. Am I missing any other considerations because this is not strong:

Despite age verification laws empirically not working (VPN use just skyrockets), Rawls would argue that civil disobedience requires visibility and the acceptance of associated consequences. Anonymously non-complying against a democratically enacted US law lacks this structure. This makes it more akin to evasion, which doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, it just weakens its high ground status.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 12 points 5 months ago

I don't live in an area under the jurisdiction of any of these laws.

Despite this, were I on stock android, I would probably need to have the means for services I use to gather more information about me, regardless of my consent to their collection. Additionally, I am legally an adult, as is everyone in my household; we have no intention of having anyone in our household under the age of 18.

Graphene OS offering a way for me to not need to comply with a law I am not governed by. Any safety argument would not apply to us even if we were governed by any such law.

With all that, I fully support such actions by OS providers.

parent

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago

It's not a requirement in their jurisdiction, right?

[+] rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca [S] 2 points 5 months ago

The article lists some of them.