A small set of people are merging changes to various Linux components to make sure every application knows your birth date.

This is being done rapidly by people with questionable justifications and being merged with no youth and few marginalized people involved.

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/accountsservice/accountsservice/-/merge_requests/176#0b07c0cc4d49be119f65cdb2037440f56eed647a

user: Add BirthDate with polkit-gated GetBirthDate and SetBirthDate methods (!176) · Merge requests · accountsservice / accountsservice · GitLab

Summary Add a BirthDate field to the user account interface. For non-homed users, the value is stored...

GitLab
@wwahammy wtf… these are current maintainers???
@k3ym0 some are. systemd already merged a corresponding change from the same contributor.
@wwahammy can’t we fork it prior to that commit and maintain a separate fork?

@k3ym0 could it be done theoretically? Sure. But on systemd, that'd be a huge task to maintain. And the systemd folks say "oh, this PR is just an optional part of the user account system, we're just making a common API for anyone who wants to add it for any reason".

They build the tracks and plead innocence as to what is in the trains.

The Engineer Who Tried to Put Age Verification Into Linux

Dylan, useful idiot with commit access, pushed age verification PRs to systemd, Ubuntu & Arch, got 2 Microslop employees to merge it, called it 'hilariously pointless' in the PR itself, then watched Lennart personally block the revert. Unpaid compliance simp.

Sam Bent
@zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 wtf, so now Linux and we all are under California ruling? California Über Alles?? Well I hadn’t anything against systemd, now I have a big one.
@tagomago @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 there are similar laws being approved and some are already in force in many places through out the world.

@DiogoConstantino @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 Imho legalism is not a valid standpoint, precisely in free software. What if free software is made illegal in California (and “many other places”). Would you just shrug and stop making it? This is at best cowardice. Also, I find the fait accompli argumentation on the PR (“we already collect personal data 🤷”) so disgusting. As if this was nothing at all.

This is what happens when you hollow out ethics, you’re left with technicalities.

@tagomago @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 your stand point is childish and imbecile this is a political and legal issue, and it's exactly at this nature that both the definition of Free Software is, and that this problem is.
@zl2tod @tagomago @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 just like he's doing to the developers and others he's accusing not having ethics, but not even making the minimal effort to put himself on their shoes, the shoes of users that would be forbiden from using software without this.
@zl2tod @tagomago @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 he likely knows nothing about those developers, like if they are actually organizing to fight in the ways that can actually be successful in repealing or ammending these laws. But he still attacks them.
@zl2tod @tagomago @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 I've been a Free Software advocate for 26 years, I and others have fought many fights like this, shaming and attacking developers and demademanding them to not obey the law to be ethical, was never successful.
@zl2tod @tagomago @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 and in my country we have actually won fights: example we can legally break DRM, because we did the political fight, we tirelessly enganged with politicians, until we convinced them to change the law.
@zl2tod @tagomago @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 making it more risky to develop, distribute, having a livelyhood, and to use Free Software, is not a considerate or ethical attitude, it's the opposite, specially if "you're," demanding others to suffer the consequences, it's a very entitled attitude.

@DiogoConstantino FFS, another clown who's completely ignorant about Free Software being a political movement. GTFO

@tagomago @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0

@DiogoConstantino With all due respect, go fuck yourself.
@tagomago @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 Systemd also accepts vibe code. The init system with unnecessarily massive development attack surface now got so much better !!
@slotos @zl2tod @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 Ugghh... thanks for letting me know. 🙃

@yrrsinn

What the ... I, I don't. 😳

@yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 From the article: "The surveillance state runs on volunteers: people who do the implementation work for free, out of genuine conviction, with no paper trail connecting them to the money that wrote the laws."
The community pushed back hard on this one. The Arch maintainers are holding, Canonical backed away, and Artix Linux, the systemd-free Arch derivative, issued the clearest statement: they will never require any verification or ID. It's FOSS When someone opened a revert PR, Lennart closed it himself on March 19th. The birthDate field is in systemd and it's staying.
It's funny because only Artix isn't actively enforcing this change. Arch are lying that they're holding (they're not). Canonical are lying that they're backing away (they're not). How can I tell? Both of them use systemd. Both of them require systemd. So anything that gets merged into systemd, they require, whether they want to or not.

It's a fuggin disgrace to see people downstream of an important change saying "Oh no, no we aren't gonna comply with this nosirree," while forcing upstream compliance of it down our throats just by being useless tools.

CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]
@cy @wwahammy @yrrsinn Canonical never had a position, stop pushing fake news.

@yrrsinn Don’t blame the guy. He’s a victim of surveillance capitalism as we are, except that he was just given the role of the bad guy.

@wwahammy @k3ym0

@aemstuz @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 He volunteered for the role of bad guy, so yes, we're blaming him.
@aemstuz @yrrsinn @wwahammy @k3ym0 This person voluntarily and enthusiastically complies in advance, he wasn't "given a role" or wasn't forced in any way to make such changes. This world surely would have been a better place if the people wouldn't do that...

@wwahammy @k3ym0

So the age verification stuff is beyond terrible. But the systemd PR specifically seems like a weird one to get worked up about?

It does 2 things:
1) The schema-docs for the the userdb JSON, which already allows you to add arbitrary user-defined fields in addition to the pre-defined fields, now define an optional "birthDate" field to be to be a "YYYY-MM-DD" string.
2) Added a flag to `userdbctl` (edit: `homectl`, actually) to be able to set the field from that command, instead of having to edit the JSON some other way.

Like, I already deal with multi-user systems where "hobbies" is a field in there. I don't see the harm in saying "If you wanna add a birthDate field, it should be 'YYYY-MM-DD' and not seconds-since-epoch or something".

The polkit stuff? Makes my gut churn.

@lukeshu @k3ym0 I don't think it's possible to separate them in the abstract. There is clearly a common intent and a belief that this doesn't work unless they're all merged.

@wwahammy @k3ym0

So that's clearly (scumbag) Dylan M. Taylor's intent and belief. But I think it is valid to separate them for the purpose of evaluating folks-other-than-Dylan; I don't think bluca did anything wrong by merging it (nor poettering for lgtm'ing it). I don't think it's valid to say "welp, systemd added age verification, I have to switch to a non-systemd OS now to avoid age verification."[1] I think it's totally valid for bluca and poettering to look at the PR and think "the author's motivation is bad, but this specific change is fine."

"They build the tracks and plead innocence as to what is in the trains." I feel that way about a lot of stuff, but... this is even more removed than that? There's no policy engine. "They approved a standard for the width of train tracks."?

[1]: There are plenty of valid reasons to prefer other init systems, but I don't think "birthDate" showing up in a json schema is one of them.

@wwahammy @k3ym0

As someone who was once noted on Wikipedia for maintaining a fork of systemd, I think this is a really silly reason for wanting to fork systemd.

@lukeshu @k3ym0 I don't really see this as a case where forking would help anyways. The problem is that the default is supporting the system I oppose. If someone were to fork, which I agree would be kinda pointless anyways, that doesn't solve the original problem: soon, the default for the Linux desktop is for age-gating to be supported and that's bad.

@wwahammy
Technically you could build without the offending functionality, but would you want to use something designed with so much user-hostile intent?

@k3ym0

@wwahammy @k3ym0 Aaaand this is the kind of shit that was brought up when SystemD came to being. That Pottering (RedHat) just did whatever they wanted and forced changes across the entire FOSS ecosystem.

And Lennart blocking the merge to revert the merge is just icing on the fucking cake.

And here we are yet again getting a feature pushed across the ecosystem without debate or consensus, driven by a small group of devs with commit access

@wwahammy @k3ym0 “that’s not my department,” says Werner von Braun….

@k3ym0 @wwahammy

Distros (which package systemd) can choose to revert the patch that went in before building and packaging, which is quite manageable.

We have to wait and see which ones will clean it out or not.

@hopeless
But our current actions possibly help decide of they clean it out or not
@k3ym0 @wwahammy

@notsoloud @k3ym0 @wwahammy

Sure. I also don't like the unforced error of systemd taking the patch in. Really the proposed age verification laws need stopping in each country's legislature.

@hopeless @k3ym0 @wwahammy

Distros (which package systemd) can choose to revert the patch that went in before building and packaging, which is quite manageable.

So now every single distro is supposed to maintain its own separate fork of a very fundamental component?

Or just never update it ever again?

Really they need to start moving away from systemd, but it's kind of really bad because A. the whole attitude of complying in advance is very dangerous and B. it's going to take some time for many to move away even IF they are willing to do so. (But there are a ton of benefits in doing it. Systemd is a hot, bloated mess and really needs to go in general anyway.)

I'm more concerned about A really. If it starts getting into everything we're screwed no matter what.

@nazokiyoubinbou @k3ym0 @wwahammy

> So now every single distro is supposed to maintain its own

No... distros already maintain a per-project "packagefiles", these are sometimes quite involved scripts that work at the level of how to build a package. This is how they get a .deb or a .rpm pop out. It's a lot of painstaking work, but, eg, the packaging scripts offer features like embedding patches to be applied or reverted in the source package itself.

So reverting this change is fairly easy.

@hopeless @k3ym0 @wwahammy I'm aware they have stuff like that, but reverting this is much more complex than you think. This isn't a one line change. They're adding whole new packages that collect and report user info, systems that check, etc etc. Getting it back out is a significant enough change that, for all intents and purposes, it really is a fork, not just simply a packaged version.

It's also something they'll have to keep at. At least one person involved in this is on quite a crusade here. The stuff to remove and how to compensate will change frequently. So it's not just an automated fork...

@nazokiyoubinbou @k3ym0 @wwahammy

I haven't looked at the patch, but typically all you need to revert is the thing getting called / built / installed at all. It can still be there but it's either not built if it's C, not installed in the distribution binary, or just NOPped out.

Often these kind of things have their own build options and can just not be built at package-time.

@hopeless @k3ym0 @wwahammy They've submitted a number of PRs.

I already see a whole separate package added (systemd-userdbd) for example.

It's a lot of stuff. Again, this is not a one line change. And the adjustments will have to change with each new such PR. By definition it will become a fork and it will require as much maintenance as a real fork even if you want to call it something else.

And hey, someone may actually do that and perhaps everyone will switch. Maybe.

Of course, a much better solution is just to fix the distro to stop relying on a bloated hot mess that keeps insisting over and over on stepping way outside of its scope anyway... There are lots of alternatives. The old sysvinit worked quite well, but OpenRC looks nice and modern with actual standards.

@nazokiyoubinbou @k3ym0 @wwahammy

OK but if you don't like systemd-userdbd, you can even build it if it forces you to and then just not include it in the package.

This is not the same as a fork, with lists of patches routinely applied at package time, you have a lot of power over the package, either just by build options or by disabling and snipping stuff.

Yes you need to know the code to do it, but the package owners do know the code for the package they are responsible for.

1/2

@nazokiyoubinbou @k3ym0 @wwahammy

... the other thing to bear in mind is if Debian do this, all downstreams of Debian (Ubuntu, Mint etc) inherit these changed Debian packages. Redhat is the other main packager and it also has a lot of downstreams.

But it's unclear if, eg, Ubuntu (or IBM), which want to make money, will follow what would be a principled decision by Debian (if that happened) and not just ship the upstream package with all the contentious stuff in.

RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@wwahammy/116264430375745593

@wwahammy the possibility of a free Internet is gone unless we start punishing these people.

@Spirit @wwahammy Dylan sure glows
@lispi314 @Spirit I'm not sure I understand what you mean
@wwahammy @Spirit That I'm accusing him of being part of a conspiracy with state surveillance?

Fed or friend of feds.
@lispi314 @Spirit I honestly doubt he is. I think he genuinely thinks he's protecting FOSS from being destroyed. He just doesn't see that he's doing just that.

@wwahammy

No linux I use will.ever have that shyte

@wwahammy why the fuck are people complying in advance? Where is the commitment to software freedom?

@artemis I don't know why.

And I'd say "why are people complying at all?".

@wwahammy @artemis Everyone involves in proposing and merging these needs to be deemed untrustworthy and unwelcome in real FOSS.
@dalias @artemis 1000% agree. It's shameful.
@wwahammy @artemis Like seriously. Even if you weren't going to consider complying with this unthinkable, adopting something like this that's a policy matter should be a process that requires a proposal and feedback from the community, with a long enough time window for that to happen. Not rushed-through changes by shadowy actors who show up just to do what some malicious external authority demands.
@dalias @wwahammy @artemis This. Compliance can look like foot dragging and endless committee meetings about how exactly to comply with unclear and contradictory regulation. The Debian list posts noting that compliance in one jurisdiction could be violation in another are a great beginning of sitting down and engineering a feature to either death or satisfaction, which is what actual legal compliance looks like; ad-hoc implementations don't have enough lawyers involved to legally function.