Some of you need to watch this video, and hang your head in shame.

Dylan Taylor has been receiving constant harassment, including threats to his life and safety, for actions done collectively by SystemD. The article by Sam Bent was explictly mentioned as part of the harassment campaign, and rightfully so.

I don’t think enough people realize that this is catastrophically bad. It’ll discourage people from becoming open source developers, it’ll discourage people from using Linux, and it’ll discourage legislators from taking the Linux community seriously.

If you ever wished ill upon another human being for complying with a relatively inconsequential law, you are better off never touching a computer again. The Linux community has collectively gone so far beyond what is acceptable here.

  • jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I’ll be upset when a cloud-connected Linux component prevents the system from working unless the real name and birth date fields have been verified

    until then, this is just as inert as the real name field which has been there for decades, and far less useful for surveillance than the real name field which has been there for decades

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Don’t be logical. You’re supposed to cry fascist and hurl slippery-slope fallacies like this is the Reichstag Fire.

    • ExoticCherryPigeon@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Except this field has been implemented explicitly for this age verification laws. If this was for some random birthday greeting when you open terminal, i think fewer people would be up in arms. context is everything.

      if this moron implements compliance with laws that record a birthday today, what is stopping him adding 3rd party verification of id tomorrow? So far his track record is corporate bootlicker. You cannot trust projects where this guy is a contributer to

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        what is stopping him

        The pull request approval process? It’s quite easy to recognize that one change is harmless and another is not. The slope is not THAT slippery.

        I completely understand objecting to the systemd change, I also object, but acting like the fascists have already won is a bit crazy.

      • jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        it would be very interesting to see that attempt

        but Poettering has already said that functionality doesn’t belong in systemd so I’m not sure where anyone would raise such a PR

        seems like an Ubuntu/RedHat level distribution design to pull in a brand new age-verification / mass-surveillance component, or maybe modify an existing telemetry component

        the birth date field only made it into systemd because it’s user metadata that is consistent with what is already stored there, whereas surveillance does not

        for now, at least

        again, I’d be very interested to see what happens with follow-up PRs

        • ExoticCherryPigeon@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Poettering closed the pr that was reverting this age field. What happens is adding more and more control in the future to conform to whatever idiotic laws someone might make. Should we then also implement a filter for what you type online to conform with Russian law about calling their war “SVO”? Its their law after all, so why not make the rest of the world conform? Its already years older then this age verification?

          • jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            rejecting the revert is completely separate from accepting additional age-check / mass-surveillance PRs, you know this and you are being willfully ignorant

            I would be very upset and very surprised if hypothetical follow-up PRs were merged into systemd, and I’m betting they will be rejected

            • ExoticCherryPigeon@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              How is it different? The ready acceptance of additional fields specifically for age verification is clearly proof enough that any further bullshit will be accepted just as quickly. PR description clearly outlines it is for the sole purpose of age verification…

      • Auth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Whats wrong with Age verification? its fine to verify age, the problem with the age verification laws is the issue of how age is being verified. In this case its fine because its local first and privacy respecting.

        • Ravell@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Age verification requires doxxing yourself in order to actually work, and if it doesn’t require doxxing yourself then it won’t work and it can be bypassed, so pointless capitulation granting ease into more authoritarian forms in the future. You don’t see why any actually functional age verification is a problem while fascists are trying to control all the digital architecture?

          • Auth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            No it doesnt. If I ask are you 18 and you reply no/yes that is verifying your age without doxing you. This field is for when the user is NOT admin on the machine. This field would be filled out by the parent when they’re setting up their kids machine.

        • ExoticCherryPigeon@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Its not suitable for proving your age. Its adding a field which is a stepping stone to future gating and more control over something that isn’t even applicable to most of the users of the system.

          Why not then add a live filter to ensure that you don’t call Putler’s war in Ukraine and call it “SVO” as you are supposed to? Its the law over there and many years older than this one. People already have gone to prison for not complying with it. But hey lets make that a part of linux too. Its law after all… Do you see how stupid it is to blindly comply to something that doesn’t even apply to you?

          • Auth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            How is it not suitable? If I setup my kids age and an app wants to use the portal to check if he is over 18 and it returns no. That suitable age verification and its privacy respecting. Which is what is being suggested.

            • ExoticCherryPigeon@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              53 seconds ago

              There are already parental control packages exist in the Linux infrastructure which are not tied to low level modules such as systemd https://github.com/biglinux/big-parental-controls if you want, you can install it. Its fork is available in the Arch ecosystem for example that mentions it complies with the BR implementation (https://github.com/jersobh/arch-parental-controls)

              • This is entirely optional package that claims to be privacy orientated (I haven’t tried it) that a system administrator can install if they wish.
              • My router, an Asus one has parental controls settings already
              • My ISP router, bog standard one has parental controls settings already
              • My ISP account has parental controls settings already at account level, if Ia m not technical enough, I can call them and ask them to set it up
              • My phone provider has parental controls

              Why do I need MORE parental controls shoved down my throat when I do not desire it nor wish for it? But this time in a core component of alot of linux distributions.

              Oh and before you tell me “but ExoticCherryPigeon, its an optional field”, sure, but here is the example of the slippery slope curtsey of UK:

              Take a look at the history of this act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_age_verification_in_the_United_Kingdom
              We are now at the point where I need to use a CC to tell some 3rd party that I want a wank.

              And what else is happening now? They are suing websites not based in UK! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023#Enforcement, but that’s not all, although not at the law stage, there are some talks about also now restricting VPN’s https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/uk-government-says-it-may-age-restrict-or-limit-childrens-vpn-use-following-new-consultation.

              A lot of websites also not based in UK jurisdiction have simply self censored UK users before they get ISP level blocked.

              If this is not an example of a slippery slope, I don’t know what is!

              TL;DR tools already exist, we do not need more tools that will be a privacy nightmare