I draw the line at when a third party internet-connected service is doing validation of ID. Let’s be honest though, I strongly believe such a thing isn’t possible on a FOSS operating system environment unless they could control what was bootable on the device at a firmware level, enforce signatures to ensure that you couldn’t boot something unrestricted, remove the ability to be root, and block LD_PRELOAD so signals couldn’t be faked. There’s probably more ways to circumvent that.
What I’m trying to say is real ID verification on Linux would be awfully hard to implement, and I guarantee you, nobody would put up with it. They’d fork to a version that doesn’t have it immediately as a protest. Right now, we’re considering implementing something akin to the date pickers that were ubiquitous when signing up for internet services in the early 2000s where it’s just an honor system.
- trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtfEnglish51 minutes
goes on to provide an entire way to implement it
Yeah no, this guy is an absolute asshole
- Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.netEnglish2 days
They might use it to get support when their abusive parents send them to conversion therapy /s
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
How does systemd having an optional birthDate field prevent children from having a computer?
It also has fields for ‘Real Name’ and ‘Location’ (and has since the 1960s) without any problems. Most people don’t even know that they exist because they’re optional.
- 2 days
you’ve been defending this for days in every post related to this. They’re not gonna pay you for it
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Gosh, it’s almost like it’s my opinion and these threads keep popping up for discussion in the communities that I’m a part of.
I’m not going to pay you for replying to my comments and yet here you are.
- Calfpupa [she/her]@lemmy.mlEnglish2 days
Did you receive my payment yet? Good commenters deserve a lil treat sometines.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish6 hours
I live in a tiny old, tumbled down house with great holes in’ err roof.
- Yttra@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Because the majority of parents can’t parent and risk frying their kid’s brain? Not the computer’s problem, sure, but still pretty common…
- Calfpupa [she/her]@lemmy.mlEnglish2 days
Counterpoint: it also allows children to learn outside of what their abusive parents allow them to see. I only escaped christianity because I had access to computer and a library, and most kids don’t have access to a library today.
- Yttra@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I also grew up in a similar situation (abusive parent, evangelical), but it’s a real gamble what with the default leanings of the algorithms I see these days, and I’ve seen enough kids fall deep into alt-right pipelines because of it. It’s not all doom, but I think we were pretty fortunate…
On top of my main authority figure being physically and verbally abusive, talking to normal people and asking my parents questions they couldn’t answer about religion were what got me out. I do understand that everyone will have different situations, freedoms, and experiences, though. It might be easier for me but harder for someone else, or vice versa.
2 daysso age verification to give abusive parents another tool to oppress their children?
- Yttra@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I grew up in that situation so believe me, the abusive parents are going to find a way to be abusive regardless.
Ignoring how impractical it would be to accurately enforce, said parent would simply… not give them computer access to the outside world at all, or just change a password. In my case, they tried to limit access using router mac address rules 🤣
I think a birthday field in Pam or passwd would be fine. It’d be cool to have a happy birthday motd on login.
But it doesn’t belong in what should be an init system. Much of the scope of systemd beyond an init system is the real issue. Resolved for example. Fuck poettering.
The change was to systemd-userdb (and systemd-homed but that one most distros don’t use) which is optional. You can use the init system without it. IIRC You only need it if some apps want to use user records beyond the default NSS ones.
- anyhow2503@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Don’t like systemd-resolve? Fine. I get that plenty of implementation details are incomplete, suck or have caused friction with other software. On the other hand it’s a really useful tool for dynamic split dns handling, which is why I like using it. You can disable it, I’ve done so on some workstations and servers, because of poor choices in internal domain names leading to mDNS issues, knock yourself out.
Don’t think it should be part of an init system? It really isn’t. I wouldn’t call systemd just an init system to begin with, though that was the initial project goal. Most of its parts are reasonably well separated or at least highly configurable for a service layer. I genuinely think it’s completely insane to have DNS resolution in libc, but people have gotten used to that. Systemd-resolved is completely inoffensive in comparison imho.
Don’t like systemd as a whole? Use a distro without it. It really is that simple. Everything has been discussed - at length. Wars have been fought. At this point, change will only come if the complainers actually sit down, shut up and do some work towards their goals.
Sorry this turned into such a rant, most of this isn’t even directed at you, this situation just annoys me. Especially this poor guy getting death threats on GitHub because someone riled up all the asshats in the community who have no idea how any of this works. Maybe they should focus their energy on the political forces pushing the California legislation that started this whole mess? I’ve been tired of this stupid debate for years now. I feel like it’s mostly carried by people who have no idea what they are talking about these days.
- corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish2 days
I wouldn’t call systemd just an init system to begin with, though that was the initial project goal.
Scope creep. You’re describing scope creep.
- anyhow2503@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
No, though parts of systemd have a scope creep issue, that’s not what I’m describing. I’m talking about Poettering deciding to create a service layer for Linux after stealing some ideas from MacOS. Reducing that to “scope creep” is misleading at best and feeds into the “systemd is a monolithic application” concern trolling at worst.
We should push to switch to runit or something, and dnsmasq+Network Manager as the golden standards.
- Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Right now, we’re considering implementing something akin to the date pickers that were ubiquitous when signing up for internet services in the early 2000s where it’s just an honor system.
If you implement that, I switch to a fork that removes it.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Any systemd fork or distro that exists just to remove the birthDate field will be dead in a few weeks.
There ain’t no way someone is going to maintain an entire fork and distro to remove one optional field in a user’s profile.
- hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish5 hours
That would heavily depend on whether a fork splits systemd’s developers off. Controversial changes have spilt FOSS development teams before. The entire point of forks is to allow taking projects in different philosophical or technical directions.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
I understand the process, I simply have not seen a single fork that has any kind of traction or support outside of the individual running the repository.
The people who are making a big deal out of this are not the same people who have both the technical capability and willingness to take on a project as big as systemd.
At best someone will create a script that deletes the lines from userdb and a user can run that and then compile and install systemd themselves.
This is not the kind of technical disagreement that leads to actual forks. This is a flash point of outrage that will disappear as these people move on to new topics.
Any one serious about fighting Age verification laws are politically aware enough to understand that it is laws and politicians that need to be changed and not optional JSON fields.
- Yttra@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I mean, it’s also one field. Wouldn’t be hard to automate its removal and do a quick test.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Sure, it’s very easy to remove.
It’s also very easy to ignore and not use. A lot easier and less security comprimising than downloading and compiling a custom fork of systemd from an untrusted source.
These ‘forks’ are performative activism and not a serious attempt at maintaining a systemd fork. Once the outrage mob moves on to the next target the forks will disappear.
- pastermil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
Lmao, did that fucker really think he’d just get away with people saying “oh no~”?
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Yeah, what an idiot. To expect people to not behave like an angry mob and target him for harassment.
Such a dummy.
- 2 days
The only ID verification that works is when a legal entity that has liability for misuse verifies IDs. I want to live in a world where kids install linux on a pi and thus have root to set whatever settings they want. IF you need to verify ID for some reason, then you need to verify with something that the kids don’t control - that everyone else can trust (good luck)
- Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
How about I’d there is no verification at all and it’s just a local value?
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish1 day
Stop letting the fascists frame the narrative.
We don’t need local values at all. Computer should not be broadcasting personal identifiable info to every single website and cookie out there, regardless if it lets you lie or not. That’s fucking idiotic.
If you want to do what these things claim to be for, and protect children, you make websites contain a flag for content rating and local devices do the filtering.
Not the other way around, which is only useful for tracking. Most websites aren’t going to bother to follow through on it, anyway, why make it even more difficult and unlikely they do so?
- Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Computer should not be broadcasting personal identifiable info to every single website and cookie out there, regardless if it lets you lie or not.
Good thing that’s not what you was proposed.
You’re clearly too enraged to actually read the law though, so reality doesn’t matter to you.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish9 hours
Having a meeting sign pointing out that this user is a child is not much better. Literal friends of Epstein are involved in backing this idiotic law. That should tell you something.
- 2 days
The whole point is to ‘protect’ people for things they shouldn’t do but are legal for others. Porn is the common example where many (but not all) object and want to keep thair kids away. which is why an id is needed - otherwise any kid will give a false age.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish1 day
Parents could actually parent, instead of relying on the government to nanny your children.
We don’t need this at all. The filter should be local. The content flag should be the thing broadcast. Flipping it is insanely idiotic.
In fact broadcasting to every website that a minor is viewing is the worst thing you can do to protect them.
- 1 day
Only if every parent is willing to be a “helicopter” parent who won’t let their kids out of their sight ever. If you want to give your kids some independence but you don’t want them to be able to run completely out of control you society to have guard rails so kids can do things out of your sight without getting into too big of trouble.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish9 hours
False.
Web Content filtering has existed in some form for decades. This method they’re proposing isn’t going to be any more successful at it than what’s already out there-especially since kids are the excuse not the goal.
- 9 hours
It is easy to bypass that filtering. Even on locked down devices. Every site that the filter misses spreads like wildfire at school (until they block that one).
I fully agree with the rest. They are using parents’ cancerns to force bad ieeas.
- 2 days
It’s not just porn though.
A lot of countries want to restrict children’s access to social media - not just Facebook, etc., but also in games like Minecraft, Roblox and so on, as these also serve as social platforms.
Which is actually fine and I agree with the restriction - kids shouldn’t be on Facebook, Snapchat, or even Roblox without supervision. Emphasis on supervision. Why? Because paedos are proven to be using these platforms as hunting grounds for grooming. Look at Roblox - even if you manage to set up parental controls (which is almost like if it’s intentionally made hard to do so), paedos can get around it by using items like signs, that allow free text entry, to communicate with kids. Rule #1: kids (and paedos) will always try to find a way around restrictions, so you want those to be as transparent (read: invisible) as possible.
The problem is, these platforms are intentionally making it impossible for parents to supervise their children’s activities. Most parental controls are done in a “we had to do it so we did the bare minimum work and implemented every possible malicious tactic to deter people from using it” manner instead of actual parental protection being in mind.
Then these very same companies go to governments and plead that the current methods aren’t working, parents aren’t using the tools, and you can’t push this level of moderation onto them - Meta execs literally admit in internal memos that at this point, they just have to accept that children will be hurt, because doing anything would affect bottom lines. Their solution?
Make everyone identify themselves. But that’s not actually for protecting children - it’s to continue mining even more data, because simply said, data miners have already gotten everything from everyone they could, and the only way this can be tied together even more is by adding your real identity to all that data. Oh and all your adult related browsing too, of course.
And the sentiment won’t change until one of these “super duper secure, totally unhackable, totally not collecting your PII with all the rest of your data” companies gets hacked, exposed for data mining to extremes, all through dumping a bunch of politicians’ and powerful people’s porn habits. You think Noem’s husband being revealed as a crossdresser was damaging? Imagine top politicians - especially conservatives - being outed as trans- or bestiality porn watching “degenerates” (putting it in quotes because in my opinion only the latter is problematic, but to conservacucks…), or that they’re a prolific CSAM fanfic writer, and so on.
In my opinion, everyone should have the privacy to browse the kind of (legal) porn they want, without it being shouted out to the world. Or abused by corporations. Privacy is a key element of our lives, and it should be up to each person to decide how much they reveal to anyone. This entire ID enforcement can only end badly. Kids will find a way around it - they already do in the UK, I mean a simple VPN gets around it, and luckily not all governments want to implement this crap - and all it does is expose those who abide by the law, to even more data breaches and such.
Yeah, let’s put everyone’s dirty laundry out there for everyone else to see. A system where everyone has everyone else’s leverage? Beautiful. Blackmail stops working because everyone already knows, but on the upside, I also know everyone else’s dirty laundry and corpses are buried.
Privacy is one of those things I feel that if not everyone can have it, then nobody should. If the billionaires and the government want my secrets, then I want all of theirs.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
The whole point of the ‘Real Name’ and ‘Location’ fields was so that people could physically locate you.
They’ve been part of Linux since the 1960s without any horrible outcomes. birthDate is even less identifying than ‘Real Name’ and even less dangerous than ‘Location’.
Not that it matters because they are all optional fields that nobody uses unless they want to.
- Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
The only way to do this that protects privacy is to accept that, but also parents of young children can just not give them root.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish1 day
NO!
Content filtering should be local. Don’t broadcast people’s ages to the entire Internet. This is not only NOT the only way to do it, this is the dumbest way to do it.
