lumpenproletariatYou guys fell for memebait
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.
Fushuan [he/him]How is a field you can introduce used to verify anything? There’s no “verification” if you choose to put whatever you want.
Or what, do you consider the field that shows up when clicking some games on steam where you just scroll the year 40 down and click whatever, age “verification”? Cuz it isn’t.
Having a date field so that parents can define their kids’ age in for non root accounts on Linux so the system, in a potential future, automatically limits access to some stuff is useful, and yet there’s no age verification being done there, besides the parents themselves knowing that what they inputted is truthful.
fafferliciousBecause it will not be enough.
Because they will come back and say “look at this loophole”
“Think of the children” you’ll all say as you agree to give your government authority to determine what information you can or cannot access as “age appropriate” completely ignorant of what you’re handing over.
This would be fine if it was just for you, but you’re trying to give my control over my system and what I can access away from me because you’re too short-sighted to see what comes after volunteer age reporting. And when that still doesn’t save the children, which it won’t, because it is NEVER ABOUT THE FUCKING CHILDREN ITS ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROL, you’ll tell me again that it’s just another little minor infraction. It’s just a little bit more than volunteer reporting.
Afterall, won’t someone please think of the children?!
This is a law FOR PARENTS.
It’s not a law for children, it doesn’t target to protect children from up, but to give parents the tools to set the age of the kids themselves.
Do you have any proof that those systems were created for control? You sure have if you express your opinions with such confidence.
I can’t reconcile the fact that the entire discussion is about how we can control, based on user age settings at the OS level, the content people can access and you asking me what my proof is that the system is being created for control.
I really don’t know how to respond because it’s self evident, isn’t it? It’s there in the law? Why else add the tag to the user? Like… I just…what? Of course it’s for fucking control. There’s no other reason to have it.
As for a more broad general “the government wants to control”…I just… Look around? DMCA is a prime example. Or read people that are smarter than me about it.
They even say why I’m the message
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.
Now I can hear you already. “But EFF says age verification is the real evil and this isn’t verification! It’s just a text tag any root user can change!”
And that’s where I’m saying it isn’t. Now. But it will be. Who is pushing for this? Do you think they’ll be okay with a giant Linux loophole? Or will they try to close it? Is that not always the typical pattern with laws? Pass it then patch the loopholes.
We’ve gone from “click to prove you’re 18” to “provide a date” to “provide an id” to “make the OS and other apps verify.”
Why should I ever assume that it will stop at a simple plain text annotation? The slippery slope is documented. It’s real.
EFF Presents Cory Doctorow's Science Fiction Story About Our Jailbreaking Petition to the Copyright Office
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA 1201) makes it illegal to get around any sort of lock that controls access to copyrighted material. Getting exemptions to that prohibitions is a long, complicated process that often results in long, complicated exemptions that are difficult...
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.
This is a poor wording
That law doesn’t require to verify the age of the user, it doesn’t have to, because it’s a law for parents.
What you’re saying is exactly slippery slope. You’re taking earlier examples of completely different laws, with different purposes and mechanisms, and you make your argument based on how the implementation of those laws worked.
Occam’s razor explanation of DMCA 1201: The law makers wanted to foolproof the law and implemented security measures that weren’t needed.
Also THE only argument you have for the fact thisaw is going to be changed is the law that changed (even if only temporarily) IN A GOOD DIRECTION!
You really made me laugh.
Who is pushing for this?
I want to know that too.
I know meta lobbied for app store accountability act or smth, I don’t remember it’s name. They didn’t do that to spy on people, but because they wanted to shift the blame.