111–120 of 227 posts
Be nice to hear Linus' take on it.
If you want interesting takes ask RMS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a neat attack (in that it is obvious and a big flaw but also it makes sense that the lawmakers wouldn’t have thought of it), but it would only affect users who have an age-bucket transition while your application is running, right? Edit: as folks have pointed out, the attacking application doesn’t actually have to be running while the age-transition takes place. The attacker just has to have logs from before…
Not necessarily, depending on how the application is logging it just means the resolution to which you know a birth date is limited by how often the application is run. If i check my email every morning at 8am, and my email app logs my "age bucket", then it can know to a resolution of one day. If i only check my email on Monday mornings, it knows to a resolution of one week, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When we are installing docker repositories on my Rockylinux installation on 100 nodes at once, should we need to manually put an age of the person who is running the script somewhere in the process? Will docker be forced to prevent me from downloading its packages if I do not transmit the age in a header?
Also, like, what about IOT devices. Are lightbulbs and thermostats going to need to attest the age of their users? There are so many computers without a useful concept of a user identity. I honestly think the California law is well intentioned (in the sense that it just asks the OS to attest the age of the user, so, lawmakers probably thought this could be done in a privacy-preserving and minimally annoying fashion),…
This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…
Sure the headline is misleading. But anyone from 10 miles away could see what's going to happen next.
Like if I said "Yes, the university reserves the right to expel students who defecate on the teacher's desk. But we all know where this is going." that'd be pretty crazy, wouldn't it?
I guess going forward if you are under 18 and want to learn programming and not be harassed by the government you have to go back to having and offline only computer and stack of o'reilly books?
This headline is misleading. The California law requires that the OS store and provide the age bracket. It does not require that any verification take place. I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'. The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't…
Oh really? What else should it snitch on me next?
I'm flagging this for the misleading and incendiary headline.
Be nice to hear Linus' take on it.
If you want interesting takes ask RMS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's no problem w/ improper voting, then why would anyone object to measures intended to verify that the proprieties involved are being followed?
Because 10% of US citizens (legitimate voters) do not have the forms of ID required in these proposed laws, and it can be expensive and time-consuming to get those forms of ID which are not otherwise required for their lives (QED), and they might not do so strictly for voting. Some people think disenfranchisement is bad. Others see it as useful. Specifically, PartyB thinks those people with inadequate ID skew toward…
How is it that you don't need an ID to exercise the rights of voting 'citizens', but you need one to exercise the right of 'people'? Consider that virtually all 'citizens' are also 'people', and even if you argue they are not, the portion of voting citizens that aren't 'people' is inconsequential compared to the supposed "10%" that can't muster an ID.
It's almost as if both sides of the argument are just using logically inconsistent arguments that just aligns with whatever gets the voting demographics they like. In fact, Vermont is the only state I know of that gives both full rights of citizens and full rights of people to those without ID in a manner consistent with the anti-ID argument usually presented.