CassandrichI want someone (a real collaborator, not one of y'all as a joke) to try submitting a patch to musl adding a pw_dob field to struct passwd. I will roast and reject.
Ariadne Conill 🐰
@dalias I don't even want to figure that law out right now
@dalias my personal view is that most of fedi is rejecting a boogeyman created by lunduke
the california law is clearly intended for consumer OS with cloud services and app stores.
but importantly it has quite a few features that seem desirable
- the assured age bucket is configurable by the device owner
- it is not verified with third party services like persona
- app developers have to accept it as a valid age verification unless they have direct knowledge that the age verification is invalid (!)
the latter seems actually to be good, as there is less personal data processing happening. it makes it illegal for app developers to demand ID, they have to accept the attested signal.
I don't even know what shape, if any, compliance for a distro would look like, but most likely that information wouldnt be stored in /etc/passwd anyway.
most likely we would just have a daemon that generates attestations based on a configured age bracket. no libc changes needed 😵💫
Jackie@dalias @burnoutqueen my points are
- the law is not targeted (as in intention) at FOSS projects
- a compliant OS can simply generate any signal it wants and remain compliant with the law
- people are vigorously debating the law as represented by Bryan Lunduke, a known chud
Eric Schultz@ariadne @dalias @burnoutqueen I'm debating the implementation based on the law and what people are actually doing.
Pretty sure Lunduke didn't inspire me given he literally posted my name last fall in a tweet where he discussed "groomers" because I challenged a fascist running Rails. It's not about me but just saying.