Reject the age verification.
Liberated systemd is a fork of mainline systemd started by Jeffrey Seathrún Sardina, a machine learning/AI researcher
I already have qualms about that.
Call me dreamy-eyed, but the reference to “machine learning” might mean this person has respect for what the technology is and has been for decades before the chatbot flood
yea but as to how this tech seems to me rn, leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
There’s no age verification in systemd. That field doesn’t verify anything
But my clickbait!
Not yet, it doesn’t. We’ll see how far we go down this hole.
well, obviously. that happens on some external service.
I find that move extremely funny, since it’s purely made for sensationalism and nothing else. I mean, if you hate how systems implemented age verification, then why don’t you remove its identity verification too, i.e. also optional fields for stuff like your address an e-mail that most users don’t even fill out.
There is no mechanism verifying what birth date you type in - you can type whatever date you want and systems doesn’t care.
I’d say no matter where you stand with age verification, this is the best solution to handle the situation. After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways. There is no real knowing how other systems are checking ages, and there is AFAIK no real government mandated rules on how it is verified. They could make you scan your ID’s front, back, nuclear composition and dietary preferences and give you a result that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a proper age verification procedure.
If the government wants to introduce age verification, they have to do it themselves - build an API that handles the age verification, similar to how the digital ID in Germany works, as an example. If they want proper age verification, they also have to take the blame themselves if things go wrong.
My line in the sand is when a distro/app starts enforcing entry of birth date data. Having a database field to store it, or even an optional prompt for it isn’t the point where I bin it.
This is the most sane take I’ve read in this entire debacle. Between arguing the semantics of attestation vs verification and whether we need five hundred forks and PRs, I’m glad to read this.
The biggest mistake the original PR did was not make it more clear it’s not directly because of the laws themselves, it’s to support higher level systems that may want to or need to comply. Systemd is no more complying with any present or future laws than a keyboard manufacturer is violating the law if the user uses it to type racially motivated hate speech.
I would but I’ve always been opposed to systemd anyway.
But for me it’s a slippery slope I don’t think we should even get on.
Yeah I hated systemd since before it was cool to hate systemd again.
But for me it’s a slippery slope I don’t think we should even get on.
I agree. But the start of the slope isn’t my exit point. My exit point is just before the slope gets too steep to get off.
That’s the thing about slippery slopes. You don’t really know where the point you slip is.
I do. We’re on it already. The whole system is slipping towards an age gated internet, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. That’s the slope. There’s nothing I can do to stop it, whether I’m I stay on or get off.
I don’t believe that dropping my whole OS over a database field will change anything. It won’t stop the devs who are concerned about their legal liability from being doing what they need to do to protect themselves. Some devs will comply, some will walk away from OSS, and some won’t comply. But the bigger the project, the more corporate sponorship it relies on, the more certain it is going to be in the “comply” category, and the truth of that won’t change because users push back.
Which is to say, I don’t believe standing up and rejecting a DB field as a matter of principle will change anything, except to make my life harder.
My line in in the sand isn’t about changing the course of the path we’re on, it’s about my own personal interactions with the system. And being forced to provide my age to interact with the internet is the bit I won’t do. So I will stay with the inevitable creep towards that state until the last possible moment, in the hopes that somehow, I’m wrong, and we avoid this privacy nightmare we’re heading towards. If and when it becomes impossible to interact without providing that data, then that’s where I step off, even if it costs me half the internet.
I’m curious about GNU Shepard but still haven’t gotten around to swapping. Does anyone have experiences to share?
Good distros will push default a dob of 1970-1-1, mark my fucking words.
That’s still forcing a DOB, which is the line I won’t cross.
When you make a new user using
adduserdo you leave your full name, number, and room number?Blank is blank, epoch is functionally the same as leaving it blank. Especially if it becomes industry standard.
They’re not the same though. Your method will enable the system to interact meaningfully with an age gated internet. Blank will not. And I won’t be interacting with an age gated internet…
That is a valid point. Of course it still would be rather anonymised, but it could always be a ‘frog in the pot’ type situation, where most drastic changes are introduced very slowly. My main concern at the end of the day is how much info will be required to be given to services and how much data will be actually stored. If it’s anonymised, then I don’t see much of a threat. If a service requires me to fully identify for an age check, that’s an entirely different thing, especially considering the last of Discord’s data leaks.
You know I remember when age verification was a thing on porn sites.
No big deal, I was like 12 and could easily say “yupp, I was born April 20th, 1969” and there was no problem.
Now, in several states that has escalated to you showing your ID.
Do you think this is the end game? Systemd made it clear with this move that any kind of US law passed will be able to be honored by their architecture. They didn’t take a stand that you would expect from pretty much the entire Linux community as a whole.
And see the funny part is where you talk about “if the government wants age verification they have to do it themselves” they pretty much do in USA its called your social security number. Banks, auto dealerships, landlords etc use it all the time and its very effective.
By not taking a strong stance against what is happening here you are paving the road brick by brick to having to provide full on SSN and very plausibly retina scans or something similar in the not so distant future before you can even login to your computer or phone.
I don’t understand, how people here are missing that. Fuck we are on Lemmy because we see how shit worked with things like reddit and others. Things always escalate when control and greed are the primary motivators.
This will escalate. And when it does I want you to remember that people were rightfully making a HUGE FUCKING DEAL about when systemd started doing this because by then you will be able to see clearly how it led to whatever surveillance wet dream they are absolutely going to force on us. It will be clear, and this will be step 1 .
I don’t think that systemd is really bending the knee too hard on this one. Actually, I think this move is actually a great way to render any sort of age verification, when using systemd, inert. Because, let’s think about it: it’s an optional field, in a JSON file that NEEDS to be editable at all times. If a distro decides to implement any serious age verification, it will have to store the data, namely the date of birth, somewhere. The /home folder would be wrong, as the user could edit that at all times. The userdb on the other hand can be restricted, meaning that the user can only edit it with user privileges. So if a government questions the seriousness of this verification method, distros can just claim that it is the administrative duty of the parent to prevent their children accessing things they shouldn’t, and that the Linux kernel itself provides the proper tool to do it without constant supervision. Yet systemd cannot enforce any stricter rules because service users, especially root, are not real people and thus cannot have any age verification. The only solution would be to tie these accounts to a person. This would cause an outrage at companies, considering that this role would most likely be the CEO or CIO, and if that device is stolen their identity could be linked to a crime, and I doubt any police station would bother trying to retrieve that laptop.
So this change will most likely be the maximum systemd can do without breaking distros for corporations, while at the same time allow classic Linux users, who most likely give themselves admin rights, a way to render any verification null and void by editing this optional field on their own.
EDIT: Also, being mad at an organisation trying to meet the laws in order to be usable will solve nothing. As you said yourself: a strong stance is needed. So complaining about systemd and trying to make them revert it will do nothing, because there will always be someone who bends the knee. If you want to do something, organize or join a protest and go to the streets, show that the law is for the people, not to be used as an oppression tool.
No no no, NOT “meeting the law” this has not been made law in USA yet which is the law they referenced when mentioning this merge.
You should read the thread in github.
A system76 developer said he’s in talk with state representatives, that this might even be overturned, and that it might not even affect open source software at all and one of the systemd maintainers said and I quote:
“It is possible that California law will be changed. But similar ideas are popping up in other contexts and it’s unlikely that they’ll all go away. This implementation is fairly generic and useful for other things besides age verification, so we shouldn’t decide whether to merge it or not based on a single law in any jurisdiction.” -keszybz
That seems like bending the knee pretty fucking hard man.
What they have done is proven that they can bully and harass open source software into submission. They should have waited until FORCED to do something like this but it seems like they’re beyond eager to lick anyone’s boots USA or otherwise.
Linux distros are not US entities bound to US law the last I checked (of course you have your Redhats and etc. And I guess maybe their Fedora distro might fall under us jurdistiction since its developed by red hat but I’m not sure because of being open sourced licensed.
They’ve bent the knee before with banning Russian and I think Chinese Linux kernal maintainers before which was also fucking bullshit.
The USA shouldn’t be able to swing its dick around and force the whole world into submission but boy it sure seems to get to every single year more and more and more.
And a lot of people here support it its so sad.
Anyway I’m getting off track with this but seriously no, they should have taken a stand not only for all of us but for Linux as a whole because systemd is a part of Linux as a whole.
If forced, I understand. This was not forced. This was suggested, merged welcomed and the thread locked as soon as any pushback happened.
Doesn’t seem very open anymore to be honest.
I agree with all that you’ve said. But why add it now? Why haven’t they added it a long time ago? Or if now they remembered, why not other extra optional fields that some people might want, like gender, sex, any other field? Oh, it would be too political? I see…
I’m thinking the same. I understand the people saying it’s no big deal, it’s just an optional field. But the existing optional fields (GECOS) have been there since the beginning of time. The original Unix user database (/etc/passwd) was created in a different time. Things have changed in the last 50 years and we now know that a simple field in an OS level database is not really an appropriate place to store PII. I don’t know what the solution is, as these laws are coming and there will be some people that need to comply, but I don’t think the current change to systemd is the right approach.
On the plus side - this controversy has prompted me to look into other options for my home servers and I’m loving the minimalism and simplicity of Alpine. (This isn’t a knee jerk reaction - I’ve been frustrated by the bloated feel of mainstream distributions for a while - more the straw that may break the camel’s back)
Oh, definitely I’m not saying people should just jump the gun and replace their distro for one without systemd immediately. I certainly won’t, at least not without thinking about it for a while. But I also think that denying the controversy exists is not good. This is definitely controversial, for some people even a deal breaker and there are valid, real reasons why. For the rest, it’s good to look at what options there are, see that there really isn’t an appropriate alternative for systemd in some cases and realizing that a successful fork would be a good thing. Also, a long time criticism of the community has been that systemd does too much and it being against basic Unix philosophy. I always thought of it not being a big deal, given its modularity. But I now realize that it centralizes control and design decisions to a single org and that is certainly a weak point IMO. So a fork makes a lot of sense, but it is at this point a mammoth of the project, so it will be really hard to maintain.
I mean, the introduction of the date of birth field is obviously done to make it easy for distros to comply with age verification by simply saving the birth date and nothing else.
As for the other fields: what use would it have to have such info at OS level? What application would use these fields and how? I mean, some fields, like the ‘location’ one, already are pretty useless, as, for example, the ‘location’ field doesn’t seem to bhave any firm consensus on how it should be formatted. Even the documentation lists both “Berlin, Germany” as well as “Basement, Room 3a” as valid values.
So I doubt not introducing such fields has any sort of political agenda to it, but just raises the question on why such fields would be useful to begin with.
you mean like adding it to a bunch of optional details already?
Yup. All this crying about the field is a big nothing burger.
This. And forking is easy. Maintaining a big piece of software is not. This is why every popular repo has hundreds of forks, but non of them are active or in sync with upstream.
- Optional dob field added to distro
- Stupid people freak tf out
In an ideal world, even that optional DOB field would have been blocked. Your first instinct on seeing techbros wanting to surveil us shouldn’t be “how we can comply”, but “how can I fight it”.
You give a millimeter and the powers that be will take a whole kilometer.
No compliance.
Even something as “small” as this needs to be met with prejudice.
Actually they’ll take a mile because its bigger and they hate the metric system also
Barbarians can’t even measure right. :V
- Fork a project that you have a problem with;
- Write a strong worded manifesto;
- Revel in those sweet sweet internet clicks;
- Try to gather a team of seasoned engineers to keep and evolve the project;
- Most likely fail, look for the next controversy, repeat.
Yes, but what’s wrong with this? If you gather engineers that are capable to maintain it - what is the downside? Systemd could always have used a bit of competition, I think most of us can agree. Most of the forks of systemd will fail, but most of all projects fail after some time. I don’t think this situation will harm systemd ultimately and it shouldn’t.
There’s nothing wrong with forking a project, IF you can and intend to maintain it – hell, that’s the whole basis of FOSS.
Forking it to make a point with no intention to maintaining it is just an easy way to gather clicks and stir drama.
IMHO the effort is better spent fighting the politicians that are shoving this down our throats, or should we fork all the tech that gets affected by bad political decisions?
Try to gather a team of seasoned engineers to keep and evolve the project;
What is there to evolve? Just keep it up to date with the mainstream project while applying this one patch. This is as useful as the signatures that prohibit use of comments to train LLMs.
Forking projects to put a different coat of paint on them is just silly. It’s still the same project, it’s just got your sticker on it now. You still dependent on upstream decisions. If things change too much for your liking, you have a growing patch management issue on your hands, and that’s not fun. But hey, you’re free to do it, that’s the beauty of FOSS.
Reminds me of the Linux distros that just fork Debian, stick a new theme and logo, create a website and voilá. Nah, mate, it’s still Debian.
What is there to evolve? Just keep it up to date with the mainstream project while applying this one patch. This is as useful as the signatures that prohibit use of comments to train LLMs.
That sounds super easy on paper. In practice nobody is going to do this long-term.
The kind of people who get massively upset about this are not the kind of people that are going to make a long term commitment to actually doing anything. Forking systemd is performative activism, that’s it.
I know, 100% agree. It’s not a lot of work but people will quickly find another thing to get angry about and move on. Trying to fork systemd over this feature is completely pointless.
FUCK THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF STUPID USING LINUX. Lots of tin foil hat wearing morons making mountains out of molehills.There was no age verification support added. All that happened is a DOB field was put in so people can add their date of birth IF THEY CHOOSE TO so it can appear in their user account. It isn’t uploaded to anyone, it’s not checked by anyone, it is not mandatory to complete and you can leave the field blank.
Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.
So why do you not have any problem with the RealName and Email fields in systemd?
Do you really draw the line at a date of birth field, when every linux system has fields for full name and address for every user account?
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Does this systemd change facilitate future verification softwares? Definitely. Will it become a part of systemd? Extremely unlikely. Should systemd rebel and refuse to include anything facilitating these disturbing laws? Eh, probably.
But let’s not blow this change out of proportions. This is a way for systemd to not aggressively fight the laws, without enabling them either. This field changes nothing, and you will still be able to use distros that don’t even employ the field at all. They might become illegal to use in the land of the free, but that’s a separate issue that this change does not impact.
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
I don’t think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn’t implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.
For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.
I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.
And there clearly exists a use-case for that.
My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Age or identity verification in the hands of private for-profit companies is bad.
I’d rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.
most people can get behind parental control. that is why bad actors are pushing for age verification everywhere nowadays.
i think the issue many people have with that field is, that it enables bad actors to do things. all the while, it does not really do the thing it is supposed to do: if i trust my kid with
sudo, the field can easily be altered. if i do not trust my kid withsudo, it cannot install anything either way.with your last paragraph i (and probably most people) agree. but we already have those tools, right? at least until i knew computers better than my parents, there was no way i could install anything without them being OK with it. even when i was admin on my very own desktop, i was heavily reliant on the parents for everything costing money. yes, even my dumb ass figured out how to pirate stuff. but to do that while being afraid to brick your precious device with some virus - you need some tech literacy, which is for sure beyond changing one value.
most people can get behind parental control. that is why bad actors are pushing for age verification everywhere nowadays.
Yes. And I would complain if there is a requirement to need third-party for-profit companies in order to verify peoples ages. Companies want data, and government want control. Both are bad in this case.
i think the issue many people have with that field is, that it enables bad actors to do things.
This needs to be proven. Currently it doesn’t do anything. But there is work to integrate it with flathub, that would allow administrators e.g. parents, to limit access to certain apps. Maybe later there could be some kind of web interface, where a site that offers adult content, would ask the browser, and the browser would look into the account data and then respond if the logged in person is an adult or not. No third-party required, just the person that locally set the date of birth on an local account.
all the while, it does not really do the thing it is supposed to do: if i trust my kid with sudo, the field can easily be altered. if i do not trust my kid with sudo, it cannot install anything either way.
Many apps can be installed without root privileges, for instance via flatpak. And in the future it might prevent certain apps for kids.
with your last paragraph i (and probably most people) agree. but we already have those tools, right?
IDK… I think there are more tools available on Windows for that then on Linux… But I my parents never deployed those and I also never had the need for such tools.
But I guess, very often DNS block lists can be used to block adult content… But knowing the internet and adblockers based on DNS alone, that will often lead to many false negatives and positives. So I would argue that we don’t really have anything like it right now for Linux Desktops.
No, they don’t.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
I know, right ?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
Absolutely, and if you’d asked for proof of their accusation you’d be correct in this instance.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn’t.
You provided your own accusation:
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of “does this field, on it’s own, constitute age verification”.
The point most people are trying to make is that it’s a part of a larger context.
You are seem to disagree with yourself… On the one hand you say I should ask them to make a case for their argument, but on the other I’m not allowed to ask for evidence.
But instead I need to provide a proof for… them not providing proof that their argument is not a non-sequitur? Did I get that right?
You did not, points for effort though.
I’ll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that’s a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies
Yeah, this is a devious plan that has been going on for years, when they added the
realNamefield!I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
So, how about we start freaking out when someone starts making these fields required, instead of right away?
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there. if the data becomes required then it should not be there. so the result, it should not be there
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
A PR is when the discussion is supposed to happen. It’s an open source project, nothing happens “too late” to discuss. You see that change in the pull request, you can start moaning about it.
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there
Who defines what’s “useless”? You? On what authority?
the discussion happens right now, because i said so, because others are talking about it. and the data is useless when anything can be put in, it’s not used for anything, and it can’t be verified. it fails all three tests in determining usefulness
I’m not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
I agree with your second paragraph but I fail to see how the existing unused fields are somehow less dangerous or a “false equivalence” to a new unused DOB field which is significantly harder to use to deanonymize someone than their name, address, and phone number.
Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.
Good outcome.
We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.
If nothing comes of it, some of us can say “I’ve told you…”
If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say “See!! Froggies”
If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.
How do commercial distros prevent getting blocked if not through this?
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
Nope
FUCK THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF STUPID USING LINUX
we wanted the year of the linux desktop… well the first raft of windows refugees seem to be a bunch of these overzealous privacy types who think they’re now a bunch of 1337 h4x0rs because they figured out how to get an nvidia driver working on mint… they have more paranoia than actual tech knowledge, and their only contribution to the community is sowing dissent, and shouting about something as trivial as an optional data field.
The debian subreddit is downvoting an actual DEBIAN DEVELOPER when they tried to explain the situation
If i put on my tin foil hat, i’d say these people are being deliberately influenced to sow chaos in foss communities
“C’mon, guys, they’re just ARMING the untrained soldiers. They’re not even sending them to your neighborhoods!”
if there is no malicious intent in adding this, they really should learn to read the room.
The biggest defense for this I see is:
- it’s not bad now
- it’s not mandatory
- it will remain unused like the other fields that were previously there
- you can put anything in it
Then, tell me, why bother adding this in the first place, exactly at the time governments are looking toward full control of everybody’s computers? If it’s that innocent and useless, either someone really likes throwing shit up, or it won’t stop there.
And given the slate of other things that “didn’t stop there” in the past few years, you know, it cost nothing to be cautious. Especially if it’s “so useless you won’t even notice it’s there” after all.
exactly at the time governments are looking toward full control
Isn’t it all the time?
Then, tell me, why bother adding this in the first place, exactly at the time governments are looking toward full control of everybody’s computers? If it’s that innocent and useless, either someone really likes throwing shit up, or it won’t stop there.
It’s there because systemd is the place that makes the most sense to store that kind of data.
Systemd stores user details.
This is a user detail.
So, storing it in systemd makes the most sense.
The alternative is having every individual program try to store data about the user in their own, non-interoperatble formats. That’s a needless complication when systemd already stores user details
This field will not affect you unless you choose to let it. You get to pick what software is installed on your system. Unless you choose to use an application that validates your birthdate, the field does absolutely nothing.
For people who want to use birth date (say, maybe people with multiple kids) it makes way more sense to store that detail about the user along with every other detail about the user that’s stored on the system.
The alternative is having every individual program try to store data about the user in their own, non-interoperatble formats
The alternative is NOT to store that data system wide, NOT have it made easily available to anything in the first place, and NOT normalizing having all your personal data available at will to everything.
Are you really arguing about the convenience of having personal data available system wide when it’s is absolutely irrelevant to 99.9% of running applications?
You can choose to not install applications that use birthDate. It’s your system.
But, you cannot choose what other people want to install. It’s their system.
There are applications which exist, that other people can choose to install, that require this field and systemd is the logical place to store that information.
If you don’t like the applications that would use this field, and you don’t want your system to store information in birthDate then there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. You don’t get to make that choice for other people, however.
Far many more than someone.
Feels like something systemd can solve with a compile time flag. Either have it on or off depending on if you want to legally sell it in those areas or not and away you go.
Give an inch they’ll take a mile.I see your instance is UK, so I assume you don’t understand how utterly insane US lawmakers are right now.
I am aware of the Orwellian privacy implication, but how do we deal with bots, now that AI is rampant?
Something like hashcash, or what?
Some type CAPTCHA type puzzle. Maybe ask users how many Rs are in ‘strawberry’ before they can proceed
to play a game of paper scissor rock. Most chatbot try to play (without any understanding of how pointless it is). Anything that tries to play straight away is automatically a bot.
Play a game of rock paper scissors with me
None of the id fields in the systemd db are required to be filled. This is useless. Simply don’t put any personal info in, and bam, you’re already liberated, from laws that aren’t even in effect yet!
This is perfectly logical and I agree. Except that this controversy has prompted me to go learn about Lennart Poettering. I’ve been using systemd forever and I like it - I like journald and remote journald, I like networkd, I even deleted cron off my systems and use systemd timers exclusively. I knew there was some controversy about Lennart, but I didn’t really care. Now that I’ve read a bit about his background and, maybe more importantly, his new company - I don’t have a good feeling for the future of systemd.
Finally someone who’s read into the issue
Will you still say that when they implement ID checking functionality?
Will you still say that when aliens from the 19th Dimension verify your age rectally?
forget cookies, reload, begin; forget cookies, reload, begin
… auto clicker
I don’t know what this derailment is ultimately trying to say honestly.
It’s saying that you can invent an infinite number of hypothetical futures but they are not useful for making decisions in the here and now
The prospect of being prompted to submit an ID is not useful for making decisions in the here and now? As far as I understand it, this is the concrete danger. California lawmakers and lawmakers from elsewhere have indicated that this is only the beginning.
But this is just speculation. The fact is, systemd introduced a new optional field in the local database. They don’t publish an OS so they have no obligation to do anything more, actual implementation would have to happen in other projects.
What this is, is a spite-fork by some random AI researcher and anybody installing that on their system has way larger problems here and now than hypothetical ID verification in the maybe future.
They don’t publish an OS so they have no obligation to do anything more, actual implementation would have to happen in other projects
Why are the people who decide on changes to systemd implementing stuff that the vast majority of Linux users vehemently reject? +Things that they have no legal obligation of adding I might add.
What this is, is a spite-fork
No one deeply cares about the spite fork. It’s weird that commentators have suddenly become very acclimatised to the systemd changes. A few days ago people were asking themselves why a rando got through with an intensely disliked pull request and now we are here.
Obviously not, that would be something very very different than what they’ve done.
What systemd has done is the following: They went “we speak for the distros utilizing our program now”
they’ve said “we speak for the widest used extended user service in linux”… because… that’s what they are
to say they “speak for the distros” is ridiculous: in that case, every time they merge a feature they “speak for the distros”… they speak for their own software, which is implemented by distros precisely because they implement things like this
Then the whole premise of systemd is absurd if it does talk for distros (OSes). When I get NixOS, I don’t install it because it has systemd. I install it because it is built around Nix. SystemD is a freaking fire-and-forget-style convenience and that’s it. When I look at specific features I want or don’t want, the first thing I’m considering is not necessarily the init system, I first look at what sort of computer I want, then I think about the OS, and specific programs like Konsole last.
I do not want a stupid init system, in this case an init system bundled in a suite(!), taking the steering wheel like this. I definitely don’t want this happening in highly politicised contexts like this one. A layer of perversion is added when you take into account that there are hardly any places to evade these big changes as systemd is omnipresent.
SystemD making these big political statements and practical decisions is just as absurd as GNOME or Xorg doing them. Fuck that shit.
you install a distro because of all the software it includes and how they interact out of the box
you’re completely right that systemd is a background service that most people don’t care about, but it does make the whole system more reliable, and much easier to administer for servers or workstations (enterprise management; not personal)
you certainly do want an init system… even sysv-init is an init system: you need something that runs as pid 1 that triggers other services. systemd starts services, and also ensures they’re in the correct security contexts, running as the correct users, makes sure they’re healthy, tracks dependencies (not just order; this speeds things up because it can be parallel, ensures failures don’t cascade, and means there’s far less jank in random bash scripts)
this isn’t a big political statement: this is an acknowledgment that linux users - not all, but some - will want/require something like this… and systemd user database is the place where that information is stored on modern linux systems
What they’ve done, is in the user info field (which already has a ton of information that almost nobody ever fills out) they added a date of birth field. They do not control what it’s used for, who’s going to use it, or if the user will ever bother filling it out. Perhaps nobody will ever implement a use for it, it’s really nothing.
No, what they have done is kowtowing.
What? It’s like saying systemd is handing the government your info because they have a field for your real name and address.
YOU control what info goes there, if any. It mandates NOTHING.
You may as well be mad at vim because your text editor is capable of storing your birthdate if you go in and type it and save it to /public/myInfo.txt
Context matters. Systemd did this as a reaction to frankly insane laws. They didn’t have to do anything like this, yet they did and comparing this to changing and creating files manually in vim misses the point entirely. Intentionally doing something is very different from a feature being natively present.
YOU control what info goes there, if any. It mandates NOTHING.
Until closed source or even open source programs demand an ID verified age from the OS. When that happens you are forced to unmask yourself and the systemd shit is the first step to making such an API possible. It normalizes genuinely insane demands that add nothing for the users except compliance.
when that happens, I’ll build my own ISO with that part stripped out, or just move away from systemd
deleted by creator
Yupp 100% optional.
for now
Good luck maintaining it
Honestly it’s such a minor change, I’m pretty sure they could just grab all the upstream commits in the future and not do anything and it’ll be fine.
They’ll just keep forkin’ and removing that field haha
Its about forkin’ time
After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways
This is the only part I disagree with. Age verification is typically done via services like ID.me, Lexis Nexus, etc which do it via identity verification with documentation. The alternative method that most social sites have gone with is age prediction from a face scan, of which providers are more than happy to tout how they do it as differentiators. For the latter, there are even FOSS options.
I think what they mean is, with a black box we know the input, documents, and output, yes you can buy beer, but we don’t know the internals. How and for how long is the data stored, who is it shared with, who has access to it, how much meta data can they pull together to build a profile on you and so on.
I’m not into this, but is it the nerd version of releasing forks and torches?
More like forks and patches
