Technology

I don't think that systemd is really bending the knee too hard on this one. Actually, I think this move is actually a great way to render any sort of age verification, when using systemd, inert. Because, let's think about it: it's an optional field, in a JSON file that NEEDS to be editable at all times. If a distro decides to implement any serious age verification, it will have to store the data, namely the date of birth, somewhere. The /home folder would be wrong, as the user could edit that at all times. The userdb on the other hand can be restricted, meaning that the user can only edit it with user privileges. So if a government questions the seriousness of this verification method, distros can just claim that it is the administrative duty of the parent to prevent their children accessing things they shouldn't, and that the Linux kernel itself provides the proper tool to do it without constant supervision. Yet systemd cannot enforce any stricter rules because service users, especially root, are not real people and thus cannot have any age verification. The only solution would be to tie these accounts to a person. This would cause an outrage at companies, considering that this role would most likely be the CEO or CIO, and if that device is stolen their identity could be linked to a crime, and I doubt any police station would bother trying to retrieve that laptop.

So this change will most likely be the maximum systemd can do without breaking distros for corporations, while at the same time allow classic Linux users, who most likely give themselves admin rights, a way to render any verification null and void by editing this optional field on their own.

EDIT: Also, being mad at an organisation trying to meet the laws in order to be usable will solve nothing. As you said yourself: a strong stance is needed. So complaining about systemd and trying to make them revert it will do nothing, because there will always be someone who bends the knee. If you want to do something, organize or join a protest and go to the streets, show that the law is for the people, not to be used as an oppression tool.

This is the most sane take I’ve read in this entire debacle. Between arguing the semantics of attestation vs verification and whether we need five hundred forks and PRs, I’m glad to read this.

The biggest mistake the original PR did was not make it more clear it’s not directly because of the laws themselves, it’s to support higher level systems that may want to or need to comply. Systemd is no more complying with any present or future laws than a keyboard manufacturer is violating the law if the user uses it to type racially motivated hate speech.

Good distros will push a dob of 1970-1-1, mark my fucking words.

I would but I've always been opposed to systemd anyway.

But for me it's a slippery slope I don't think we should even get on.

That is a valid point. Of course it still would be rather anonymised, but it could always be a 'frog in the pot' type situation, where most drastic changes are introduced very slowly. My main concern at the end of the day is how much info will be required to be given to services and how much data will be actually stored. If it's anonymised, then I don't see much of a threat. If a service requires me to fully identify for an age check, that's an entirely different thing, especially considering the last of Discord's data leaks.

I'm thinking the same. I understand the people saying it's no big deal, it's just an optional field. But the existing optional fields (GECOS) have been there since the beginning of time. The original Unix user database (/etc/passwd) was created in a different time. Things have changed in the last 50 years and we now know that a simple field in an OS level database is not really an appropriate place to store PII. I don't know what the solution is, as these laws are coming and there will be some people that need to comply, but I don't think the current change to systemd is the right approach.

On the plus side - this controversy has prompted me to look into other options for my home servers and I'm loving the minimalism and simplicity of Alpine. (This isn't a knee jerk reaction - I've been frustrated by the bloated feel of mainstream distributions for a while - more the straw that may break the camel's back)

I mean, the introduction of the date of birth field is obviously done to make it easy for distros to comply with age verification by simply saving the birth date and nothing else.

As for the other fields: what use would it have to have such info at OS level? What application would use these fields and how? I mean, some fields, like the 'location' one, already are pretty useless, as, for example, the 'location' field doesn't seem to bhave any firm consensus on how it should be formatted. Even the documentation lists both "Berlin, Germany" as well as "Basement, Room 3a" as valid values.

So I doubt not introducing such fields has any sort of political agenda to it, but just raises the question on why such fields would be useful to begin with.

you mean like adding it to a bunch of optional details already?