Linux

13763 readers

194 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Systemd v261-rc1 is out with the 'birth date field' (lemmings.world)

submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@lemmings.world to c/linux@programming.dev

25 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] excel@lemming.megumin.org 19 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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

[–] alakey@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] excel@lemming.megumin.org 4 points 16 hours 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.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 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 ?

[–] excel@lemming.megumin.org -1 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours 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 permissions it feels extra special.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours 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.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day 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.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Wait? Aren't we also boykotting passwd because it has an optional field for your complete real name?