• Kabe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I also wonder whether or not grapheneos, or open source Linux OSs in general, will face any repercussions for failing to comply to these regulations due to the relatively low user count.

    • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Motorola* bending the knee to the mass surveillance corps and international governments comes to mind. We’ll see how their deal with GrapheneOS goes now.

      • MadameBisaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        I mean they can simply sell that phone with stock androud in californua and if users flash Graphene on it afterwards thats hardly motorolas fault

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Hate to say it but systemd, the init system of most Linux distros, already has PRs with maintainer backing to implement DoB recording.

      Some people can’t kneel fast enough.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The self-important creator of Systemd has personally blocked that PR, if I’m hearing correctly, which would suggest he or his employer Microsoft is all in on it.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            It’s an optional field in the userdb JSON object. It’s not a policy engine, not an API for apps. We just define the field, so that it’s standardized iff people want to store the date there, but it’s entirely optional.

            “I’m not picking a side” and “this future proofs standardization” is of little comfort, that is seriously suspect. I ought to look to alternatives to SystemD(odge the issue failed).

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Maybe this’ll take the shine off that wunderkinder mess and people will finally be free to choose something more reliable. I love how RH pushed this beta software so hard and my reboots are now just shite – unreliable and occasionally ridiculously delayed.

        I’ll be glad to see the back of that metastatic shitball.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That’s just systemd adding a birthdate field to their userdb. Doesn’t require that it be filled out or accurate, and especially doesn’t require it to be validated against a government database. I don’t see it as fundamentally any different from adding a userdb field for favorite color, phone number, or blood type.

        Without 3rd party validation, I really don’t see the privacy issue with an age field. Without verification, it is, at worst, one more byte available to hash into a unique identifier, but you can feed that field from /dev/random at every query and poison even that hypothetical.

        • Noam_Calhoun@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You are absolutely right, we are not in fact getting screwed, they are just applying the lube for later. (Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere)

        • Tim@lemmy.snowgoons.ro
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Why the ever loving fuck does an init system even need a user database?

          Honest to God, if FIFA were giving out a World “Understanding UNIX” Prize, Poettering would be the inaugural, and only, winner. Never in the field of operating systems has one man driven so much enshittification through sheer force of cluelessness coupled with supreme arrogance. And in a world that Steve Ballmer still occupies, that’s one hell of an accolade.

          • Kissaki@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Systemd is more than an init system. Systemd was designed to be different from previous Unix-style single-/narrow-purpose services. Many distros making the switch seems to indicate that such a switch had significant enough upsides or necessities. No?

            I read an article about why Systemd became what it is, and why it makes sense, and that made sense to me. Integration and a fully designed system has advantages over disconnected utilities and systems you have to connect and negotiate, especially on system- and boot-up level concerns.

            • PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              Other init systems are able to handle those issues without requiring the absolutely insane amount of scope creep that systemd exhibits though.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          That’s just systemd adding a birthdate field to their userdb. Doesn’t require that it be filled out or accurate

          Whoosh.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Localized age checks ARE a good system and are something that should have been in the OS for decades. It is the basis for being able to make “child accounts” and is a genuine requirement for Linux to be a meaningful option for “normal people”. And having a protocol for software/websites to request that is a very good system to build on that.

        We talk about how the problem of kids getting exposed to horrendous shit is a problem of “bad parenting”. This is the tool you provide to allow parents some control.

        The issue is not the age check. The issue is verification. To my understanding, the California legislature explicitly does NOT require a third party. So it is literally just you saying “Sure, whatever. I was born in 1901. Now load the Maya Woulfe video faster”. And yes, this is a step towards that. But so is having network access or user accounts at all.

        • corvi@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Even if we say I agree with this, why even ask for a specific year? Separate into child and adult, and let the super user make that change when asked.

          In theory I’m not opposed to it existing as an option, but I do not like it being mandatory at all. Websites and applications should never be allowed to know any PII without explicit consent.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Even if we say I agree with this, why even ask for a specific year? Separate into child and adult, and let the super user make that change when asked.

            Different countries (actually different regions within said countries) have different laws related to what “kids” can and can’t see and what age defines a “kid”. How much that matters is up to you. But it provides an automated check that ALSO avoids having to say “Hey mom? I just turned 18 and for no reason whatsoever it would be great if you could switch my account to an adult. Also make sure to knock and don’t look too closely at my laundry basket ever again”.

            Websites and applications should never be allowed to know any PII without explicit consent.

            And what do you think you are providing every time you tick “Yes, I am 18 years or older” or “Yes, I was born in 1920 or whatever the first option is now”?

            • kurwa@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              6 hours ago

              That’s there point, with this websites will just know the users age, before it was the users choice: “are you 18 or over?” But now it will be: “I know you’re 37.567 years old” user has no idea. Maybe we should add religion and skin color too

              • chisel@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                The idea of storing age in the OS is that end programs don’t actually access it directly. They get age ranges, like child/adult, not the actual birthdate. In theory, it’s much more private than uploading your id and photo to every random website/app that you use.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Cookies already exist and there is countless leakage (both intentional and unintentional…). Like most things, you are not as private and protected as you seem to think you are. Just because a website is asking you to tell it (which is mostly for compliance, not knowledge) doesn’t mean they already know that you said you were 250 years old but your shopping habits suggest you are actually in your 20s and live in Detroit and really enjoy pegging.

                Maybe we should add religion and skin color too

                To my knowledge, very few nations tie laws or access to that slippery slope fallacy. And parents generally have those same traits (at least while the kid is living with them). So I am not seeing much benefit from this?

                And if/when we reach the point where that is the case? Uhm… I don’t think companies and software will be given anywhere near as much freedom to say “Sure, we’ll comply so that we can be eligible for these contracts” or “No, we won’t comply so that we can market ourselves as protecting people”

                • floofloof@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  Like most things, you are not as private and protected as you seem to think you are.

                  That doesn’t seem like a great argument for doing something that further reduces privacy and protection.

                  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 hours ago

                    That doesn’t seem like a great argument for doing something that further reduces privacy and protection.

                    The point is that, without third party verification (which I am vehemently opposed to), it changes absolutely nothing. So it is just people whining about “freedoms” they don’t even have.

                    And… there actually are arguments that it is good to tear down the security/privacy theatre so that people can make informed decisions and understand their actual exposure and risks.

                    A good example of this is that I am REALLY happy that we, as a society, have seen a drastic shift between calling things “Private Messages” and instead calling them “Direct Messages”. The former implies that only you and the recipient can see them. The latter does away with that and people rapidly learn (and communicate) that site owners and often mods can see everything you send along those avenues.

                • kurwa@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  This is being baked in because of US law. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US made some federal laws requiring your religion in the near future.

                  There’s a big difference between data collection and government mandated identification.

                  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 hours ago

                    This is being baked in because of US law. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US made some federal laws requiring your religion in the near future.

                    And that is why it is a slippery slope fallacy. Eventually, superpowers are going to want to have access to your machines (they already do, but mostly in isolated cases). So any kind of data storage and overrides should be destroyed. So let’s go shred our hard drives and remove the concept of sudo/root access?


                    Also, I will just add on that it is more than just the US that is increasingly pushing for age verification.

        • JGrffn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah, to be completely honest, the one place where you actually could trust this kind of information is on your own local (and ideally libre-oriented) OS, never leaving your device and instead obfuscated through an API that’s exposed to whatever services need to do an age check, with the potential for additional security impositions or other concessions from data requesters due to the leverage of still having your data controlled by you. This is the bonus FOSS part where we get a say on how we want our data to be exposed on our libre systems. Other users aren’t so lucky and don’t get to have any voice on how this implementation happens, so we should probably participate in the discourse for those PRs rather than condemn them point blank.

        • chunes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          ^^^ If you needed proof that lemmy is overrun with bots just like everywhere else.

        • SalamenceFury@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Any age check is just a good way for predators to know WHO are the actual children, and with the epstein files revealing the whole billionaire and politician interest in trafficking and raping minors, this is essentially the perfect playground for them.

    • sphericalcube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I imagine people behind this law are pretty interested in this small but powerful user base. I would just boldly assume that a lot of people responsible for independent software and privacy advocates are using Linux etc. So its a interesting user base for sure. But regulating open source software luckily is pretty much impossible and they wont give up their(our) privacy without a fight. Also, we will see how much the user base will grow when these regulations get tighter.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They can simply say on their download pages that residents of Brazil and California are not allowed to use their OS.