: Flatpak may be next, and the lobbying behind it is raising eyebrows

Just what I want in my distro.

After weeks of debate, code to record user age was finally merged into the Linux world’s favorite system management daemon.

Pull request #40954 to the systemd project is titled “userdb: add birthDate field to JSON user records.” It’s a new function for the existing userdb service, which adds a field to hold the user’s date of birth:

Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.

The contents of the field will be protected from modification except by users with root privileges.

The change comes after the recent release of systemd 260 but unless it is reverted for some reason, it will be part of systemd 261. One of the justifications is to facilitate the new parental controls in Flatpak, which are still in the draft stage.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      9·
      16 hours ago

      It’s weird that this guy is pushing it with “it’s the law” justifications while claiming it’s so ineffective as to be harmless. If your justification is that it’s ineffective, why not just do nothing? That would be even more ineffective at collecting users’ dates of birth. Why be the guy who does something? He seems oddly eager and strangely confident that all the steps he’s taking to comply preemptively won’t be misused in future, by governments, corporations or hackers.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        Dylan’s words in the PR:

        After reading the bill text, this is the conclusion I came to - arch install is an OS installer, the law asks for users to provide birth date when installing an OS. Is that going to be hilariously pointless and ineffective? Yes.

        I feel like he’s getting ahead of the work as a matter-of-fact. In other words, the law passed, Arch is used by Californians, they need measures to make sure they’re not breaking the law.

        I don’t think protest even falls into it with these kind of people, even though a majority of us would jump on the chance to actively protest this law and these changes. I personally cannot wait to have this shit throw at me at the next Linux upgrade, just to pull something like what Ageless Linux does against it.

        That’s why I was vehemently opposed to the hit piece that was attacking this guy personally, by a shit blogger who I will forever blacklist. Also, fuck the mod who submitted that hit piece to Lemmy.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        7·
        14 hours ago

        Can’t speak for this person as I wouldn’t have volunteered to make these changes myself, but it’s possible that he thinks implementing “harmless” versions sooner can provide a legal basis to decline to provide “harmful” versions later.

        I’d personally wait for the legal challenges against non-compliant systems before moving into malicious compliance if necessary.

        • Belazor@lemmy.zip
          1·
          11 hours ago

          If we accept the premise that certain distros will need to comply with age verification laws (school specific ones, distros running on govt machines), then it would be better if that information was securely stored in the system database rather than relying on each school/government agency reinventing the wheel.

          I will save my ire and save my effort protesting until age verification, not attestation, makes its way into my distro of choice.

          • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish
            11·
            8 hours ago

            If we accept the premise

            Let’s not. They’re doing this backwards. If this were actually for the children, identification happens by the content, with the filters set locally.

            Not BROADCASTING TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET that a child is browsing.