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.
goes on to provide an entire way to implement it
Yeah no, this guy is an absolute asshole
also, why shouldn’t children have a computer?
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.
you’ve been defending this for days in every post related to this. They’re not gonna pay you for it
I paid him.
But I paid him (or her) not to say it.
Now THIS is a valid point
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)
How about I’d there is no verification at all and it’s just a local value?
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?
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.
Having a neon 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where the hell is this FUD coming from? No one is talking about broadcasting the fake age someone puts into this field. Your strawman doesn’t even make sense.
Even broadcasting that the user is a minor is idiotic.
It’s not FUD. This is an assault on privacy.
What I said makes perfect sense. Instead of having every computer tell every website that it needs to censor itself, have the content filtering done locally. That’s the smart way to enact this - if it weren’t just an obvious an excuse to ease us into online ID verification, and not actually about the children.
What is being talked about isn’t telling websites anything. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what the change even did.
