• FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Yeah, scary.

    What about some other scary fields like:

    • Real Name
    • Office Address
    • Office number
    • Office telephone number
    • Home telephone number
    • external e-mail address

    I mean if those fields were stored, could you imagine the danger that Linux users would be in?

    You don’t have to imagine, because those fields have been stored in UNIX/Linux since 1962. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecos_field

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Those are also entirely optional and not having them filled in doesn’t cause other software to stop doing what the user wants.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Who cares why it is stored, these fields exist for every user in every Linux system and they have existed for decades.

        Either birthDate the field is dangerous or it isn’t. If it is, how?

        It is no different than data fields that ask for way more identifiable and personal information such as Real Name and Office number which have, again, existed for decades without issue.

        • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          I care. One thing is “you know, fields with this name have been around since before you were born”, another thing is “some idiots passed the law half the globe away, now we are preparing your system to comply. Someone has to ©”. The field is not the danger, the thinking, attitude and act is

          Edit: some local law, for fuck’s sake

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            That’s a fair argument.

            Is it fair to say: The field is benign but there is contention about if it should be added or not and users of the software are concerned that their voices were not heard on the issue. That can be handled in the normal project framework, perhaps by suggesting a publicly stated policy about these issues around legal compliance so the community can determine if they want to support the project or not.

            My argument is that I don’t think that the damage that was done justifies the hitpiece in the OP which is, almost literally, painting a target on the developer with the mugshot photograph and loaded language.

            So, if you’re not one of the people then we’re having different conversations. In that conversation, I do agree with what you just said. I’d like to see the very large projects, which affect a lot of users, such as systemd, have a more formal way to accept public comment and respond on contentious changes and feature requests.

            • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Is it fair to say: The field is benign

              It is benign if it is optional, remains 100% local and under the user’s control and doesn’t prevent other software from functioning as expected.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think back then it was generally assumed this simply assisted with office communication.

      Imagine telling a UNIX engineer in the 70’s how almost everything you enter into a machine would eventually be used to manipulate or entrap you by the State and surveillance capitalism.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Imagine telling a UNIX engineer in the 70’s how almost everything you enter into a machine would eventually be used to manipulate or entrap you by the State and surveillance capitalism.

        This isn’t a hypothetical. North Korea uses a version of Linux which does exactly that.

        It still doesn’t make these fields inherently dangerous, and that same argument applies to birthDate. Even if systemd build a verification system that required photo identification and a DNA sample it wouldn’t be a problem.

        The community would just fork the project before the totalitarianism update. The FOSS world already has a process to avoid massively unpopular changes. This change isn’t massively unpopular, this is a vocal minority who is stirred up by web articles leveraging clickbait and outrage to drive ad revenue.

        The age verification laws are unpopular, I’m personally completely against them. However, they do exist and adding an optional field in order to allow project, who choose to do so, to store that data is not a red line or the start of a slippery slope.

        In the future, if there was a red line that was crossed, we would fix it with a fork and not with a harassment campaign.

    • jdnewmil@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You must be off by a decade. Your reference mentions no OS and Unic was developed around 1970.