• hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 天前

    Ideally, we wouldn’t need to do age verification at all. But if it’s absolutely required, the most privacy-preserving way would be:

    1. System administrator verifies the birthdate of the user, stores it on the user account
    2. Applications can then ask, “is the current user over 18?” And just gets true/false.
    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 天前

      Applications can then ask, “is the current user over 18?” And just gets true/false.

      the current implementation allows reading the precise age

    • Supercrunchy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 小时前

      Exactly, and some of the laws require just asking if the age is over a some pre-defined threshold, not sending the full date, for example “is the user over 18? Is the user over 15? 13?”

      And just to be clear, I do think that “protecting the children” is just an excuse to push surveillance tech that was very convenient to use after the Epstein files. I am strongly against these laws and I am supporting ($$$) activist groups fighting against them. Do consider donating or getting involved too if you can.

      But this specific change isn’t adding surveillance to Linux. It’s just a date of birth field that a parent can set. I can see why a parent would want it instead of using shady and intrusive “child control” software that takes over the computer.

      You need to store the date of birth to update the user’s reported age automatically. It makes sense and puts the “protecting the children” responsibility back on parents instead of third parties that every website is now starting to use.

      The systemd solution is not even reusable for actual verification because it can’t provide any cryptographic proof of the verification! It’s literally just a date.