Erin 💽✨1d ago
Everyone seemingly getting mad about systemd adding a completely optional date of birth field to user records that is, in reality, only ever going to be filled in on the machines of children administered by parents who want such restrictions enforced, perhaps on machines administered by schools, or by people who want their computer to wish them a happy birthday.
Show threadCassandrich1d ago

@erincandescent "only ever going to be filled in on the machines of children administered by parents who want such restrictions enforced"

You say this as if it's not a huge problem in itself. We should not be building or shipping tools for abusive parents to use to surveil or control their children.

Show threadErin 💽✨1d ago
@dalias abusive parents will surveil and control their children whatever you do. Honestly if some of these parents decide to leave things up to the government (which is on average midly conservative) instead of themselves (which is quite often incredibly conservative) it might even be a net win
Show threadCassandrich1d ago

@erincandescent That doesn't justify being part to it and essentially forcing distros to ship an abuse-mechanism unless they actively patch it out (thereby having to make a highly charged political statement).

Yes a determined parent with technological know-how can always find a way to put such malware onto their child's machine. We should not be making it an out-of-the-box feature of "Linux".

Show threadErin 💽✨1d ago
@dalias A date of birth field in a user information record is an abuse mechanism?
Show threadCassandrich1d ago

RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@mgorny/116274748222570834

@erincandescent Combined with other things, yes. See for example:

Show threadAstroBoat16h ago
@dalias @erincandescent It should be the other way around: softwares should indicates the age limit for a content, and the system controlled by parents should decide whether the application can be run or the content can be viewed by children.
Show threadErin 💽✨16h ago

@loptimist @dalias this is broadly how the portal works; you ask about a range and the API returns bounds on the user’s age based upon applicable laws (where the bound can be “unknown”/“not applicable” and probably should be outside of California/Colorado).

Yes, maybe “Can the user see a film rated (mpaa:r, usk:15+violence, bbfc:15+violence, …)” would be a better API and this is being discussed but unfortunately that is not the API California and Colorado are mandating operating systems to supply (the mandated API must return to an application that the user falls into one of a handful of enumerated age ranges and no more)

What they are aiming for with the age verification portal is precise minimal compliance with the law in a way that can trivially support similar laws elsewhere that e.g. differ in enumerated age ranges.

Show threadAstroBoat

@erincandescent @dalias

Where is that API located ? On the OS or within apps or websites ?

If the API is provided by the OS, it means that third-party software would be able to collect age ranges, which is unacceptable in my opinion.

That’s why I suggested that applications and content providers should provide a way for the OS to retrieve age ratings, and then let parents make decisions using parental control tools.

If that's not compliant with Californian law, then perhaps the law is flawed, as it does not adequately guarantee privacy.

12:20pmWeb