Archr

Quick someone share the dns haiku.

Do you have a source on the udev thing? I have not heard of this.

Were you looking at man systemd.timer? Pretty much everything you need is on there and it is not too complicated.

That law just says "A person that violates this title[...]". Which is vague. But it appears to me that this would include the parent.

It is also something that only athe AG can bring charges for. This won't be something that police are getting out their ticket books for. And if we don't like how the AG is handling it, we can try to recall them.

there's not a system in place to assign them responsibility regarding the child accessing places it should not (if we do really think they should not).

That's what this law does. It provides a system (age attestation) and penalties for violating it.

No. I am more referring to how we left parents to let their children have free reign of the internet and they got injured. It is exactly because we cannot trust parents to moderate what their children do online that these laws are coming up. Do you think we would still get these laws if there were no children on the internet (maybe still for pron but that is because people are prudes).

I see that you edited your comment to take this part out but I do want to talk about it anyways.

You compared this to having automatic roads that shift risky drivers to their own space and how that would be ridiculous. Which it would be. But comparing a law like this to driving is an awful comparison.

Until recently there were very few laws regulating what a child is allowed to access online. But that is just not the same as driving. States require that you get a license, take a test, follow road rules, get your vehicle inspected, and many more requirements. We have these requirements because we know that we should not let an untrained driver on the road.

So fucking true. Once you get more than a hundred systems or so it feels like something new to resolve every day. Especially when your work let's people with no idea what they are doing have root on "their" servers.

I have dealt with issues ranging from someone uninstalling subscription manager (RHEL) and then clearing the package cache to people replacing chronyd with ntpd for.. Reasons? I guess?

I have thought about using bazzite but I prefer debian based as well as using more general purposed distros. So I am just on basic debian.

I just want to make sure that we do agree on a few things.

1. Requiring actual ID verification and/or face scans is bad and cannot be effectively anonymized.
2. That many of the current bills do not require ID verification or face scans. This includes the California one that the systemd merge request cites as well as the Colorado one that it mostly identical.
3. The laws in their current form are poorly written and clearly misunderstand how modern general purpose computers work and are referred to.

Given that, I think we can ultimately agree that the NY, UK, Germany, and I think also the Brazil laws are bad and cannot be fixed with simple updates to language.

So let's focus on the law's that do not require actual verification since that is what the systemd change cites.

What issues do you have outside of that they are poorly written and ineffective or that they are a slippery slope/frog in a pot/tip of the spear?

This is not about my comfort this is about what these laws actually require rather than some imaginary law that has not even been written yet.

I figured that someone might latch onto that "necessarily" and that's the great thing about open-source. If that distro/application/os does misuse your data then don't use it or fork it.

However.. ive read the associated analysis of the California bill that reads directly on legislative intent:

quoting he Cali Senate Judiciary Committee analysis : file:///home/jspaleta/Downloads/202520260AB1043_Senate%20Judiciary.pdf

Why are we listening to a person who tried to link a file directly from their downloads folder?

Also the original post that the article is referencing on the fedora forums is suggesting that we remove all networking support from baseline linux as some way to comply/circumvent the law.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take anything said in that forum post seriously.

Sure I can chime in here.

You did actually read the post correct? Not just the title? The original poster, Jef, is talking about implementing a Unix socket or a dbus protocol similar to what apple already has. They are literally just referencing their definition for a struct.

So no this will not be ID verification, it won't ask for face scans, and it won't necessarily send the data anywhere.

The article is just using the big A word as some boogeyman to generate clicks and further rile up the community.

The systemd change is benign and this is not proof of your slippery slope theory.

Edit: I swear literacy rates in the linux community must be dropping.

Ahhh. And then you have people like me who have been seeding for years but are way too socially anxious to even start any of that process. (:

So if you are a passing trans woman you either:

A. Risk retribution from the law and use the women's bathroom.

Or

B. Follow the law and get called out for being a women in the men's bathroom.

This law really just criminalizes using the bathroom if you are not 100% heteronormative.