However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies
Yeah, this is a devious plan that has been going on for years, when they added the realName field!
Comment on Someone Forked Systemd to Strip Out Its Age Verification Support
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 1 day agoHard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 14 hours ago
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 12 hours ago
So, how about we start freaking out when someone starts making these fields required, instead of right away?
WraithGear@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there. if the data becomes required then it should be there. so the result, it should not be there
iglou@programming.dev 18 hours ago
Do you really draw the line at a date of birth field, when every linux system has fields for full name and address for every user account?
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 2 hours ago
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
goldman60@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I’m not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
goldman60@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I conceptually agree with your second paragraph but I fail to see how the existing unused fields are somehow less dangerous or a “false equivalence” to a new unused DOB field which is significantly harder to use to deanonymize someone than their name, address, and phone number.
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 5 hours ago
Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.
Good outcome.
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 23 hours ago
We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.
If nothing comes of it, some of us can say “I’ve told you…”
If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say “See!! Froggies”
If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.
UltraBlack@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
How do commercial distros prevent getting blocked if not through this?
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
cmhe@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
I don’t think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn’t implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.
Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change. For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use - you can’t - there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic. I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
cmhe@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.
And there clearly exists a use-case for that.
My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Centralized age or identity verification is bad.
I’d rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.
ToxicWaste@lemmy.cafe 5 hours ago
most people can get behind parental control. that is why bad actors are pushing for age verification everywhere nowadays.
i think the issue many people have with that field is, that it enables bad actors to do things. all the while, it does not really do the thing it is supposed to do: if i trust my kid with
sudo, the field can easily be altered. if i do not trust my kid withsudo, it cannot install anything either way.with your last paragraph i (and probably most people) agree. but we already have those tools, right? at least until i knew computers better than my parents, there was no way i could install anything without them being OK with it. even when i was admin on my very own desktop, i was heavily reliant on the parents for everything costing money. yes, even my dumb ass figured out how to pirate stuff. but to do that while being afraid to brick your precious device with some virus - you need some tech literacy, which is for sure beyond changing one value.
Senal@programming.dev 12 hours ago
Actually no, they don’t.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
cmhe@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
Senal@programming.dev 10 hours ago
I know, right ?
Absolutely, and if you’d asked for proof of their accusation you’d be correct in this instance.
They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn’t.
You provided your own accusation:
And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.
Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:
It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of “does this field, on it’s own, constitute age verification”.
The point most people are trying to make is that it’s a part of a larger context.