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 datefield in the JSON user database (see second item under “Other changes”).The implementation of this field was prompted by age-verification or -attestation laws.
Writeup by @[email protected]
Yes, right next to the fields for your full name and address, all of which are optional. It’s a total nothingburger.
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.
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.
Wait? Aren’t we also boykotting
passwdbecause it has an optional field for your complete real name?I feel bad for the dev. People really harassed him when the PR was opened.
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.
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 ?
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.
missed one from before :
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 permission it feels extra special.
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.