Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Store birth date in systemd for age verification

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 129 posts

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#51

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

bravetraveler wrote: post #18
renewiltord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s admin settable. So just sudo homectl it. You are presumably admin.

That's beside my 'point', but fine. I'm deliberately conflating things for humor, sorry it missed. I'll get serious/stop joking around. I have no interest in administrating this. Especially on a per-user basis (despite that being the only way this 'works', I'm generally opposed) . I'd prefer a file to drop in /etc ... like one would express preferences over, say, /usr . It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'ju…

Stick a service unit in `/etc/systemd/system/` that is a oneshot type with `WantedBy=multi-user.target`, and which runs the appropriate homectl command for each user listed in /etc/passwd (likely just in a shell script).

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#52

Post by bitwize »

josefritzishere wrote: post #25
bitwize wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the law. If you live in the United States, and a minor in California uses your OS that didn't check age, you could be liable for up to $2500 per occurrence. That can add up quickly if California schoolkids discover your OS does an end run around the law. When ruin is the alternative, compliance becomes non-negotiable.

California can't govern outside California. Other states have discovered the legal limits of their soverignty quite recently. But it certainly argues against hosting in CA and furthermore, consulting an attorney.

If you have a connection to California, you can be sued in their courts. I don't know whether providing (not selling, that certainly counts) an OS to California residents from outside California counts as a connection, that's something you need to review with your legal team. One thing is certain though: you need legal counsel to do OS dev; the Terry Davis era has come to a close.

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#53

Post by lyu07282 »

mzajc wrote: post #9

Tangentially related, but does anyone know what Poettering's "cryptographically verifiable integrity" endeavor[0] is about yet? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572

I assume all along that trusted computing is where this age verification stuff is planned to lead to eventually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Criticism

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#54

Post by NekkoDroid »

bravetraveler wrote: post #18
renewiltord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s admin settable. So just sudo homectl it. You are presumably admin.

That's beside my 'point', but fine. I'm deliberately conflating things for humor, sorry it missed. I'll get serious/stop joking around. I have no interest in administrating this. Especially on a per-user basis (despite that being the only way this 'works', I'm generally opposed) . I'd prefer a file to drop in /etc ... like one would express preferences over, say, /usr . It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'ju…

> Said differently: I don't want to configure the portal, I want to ~~break~~ mask it.

Since this is sd-userdbd we are talking about unless the used backend provides the value it is unset by default. And if you manage your home directory using sd-homed unless you explicitly set it it is also unset by default.

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#55

Post by bravetraveler »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #54
bravetraveler wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's beside my 'point', but fine. I'm deliberately conflating things for humor, sorry it missed. I'll get serious/stop joking around. I have no interest in administrating this. Especially on a per-user basis (despite that being the only way this 'works', I'm generally opposed) . I'd prefer a file to drop in /etc ... like one would express preferences over, say, /usr . It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'ju…

> Said differently: I don't want to configure the portal, I want to ~~break~~ mask it. Since this is sd-userdbd we are talking about unless the used backend provides the value it is unset by default. And if you manage your home directory using sd-homed unless you explicitly set it it is also unset by default.

I am aware, I kind of want a louder signal than doing nothing [which is a great option, I admit]. I quote myself:

> It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'just' not set anything.

Why? Telemetry, mainly. I'd rather attestation [or whatever intends to use this] fail and make it apparently deliberate.

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#56

Post by nullc »

mzajc wrote: post #9

Tangentially related, but does anyone know what Poettering's "cryptographically verifiable integrity" endeavor[0] is about yet? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572

It's about making sure you can't bypass systems like this-- or rather, that when you use your rights under the GPL to remove this privacy invading crud or just otherwise modify your software you'll be broadly banned from interacting with third party services.

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#57

Post by NekkoDroid »

bravetraveler wrote: post #55
NekkoDroid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Said differently: I don't want to configure the portal, I want to ~~break~~ mask it. Since this is sd-userdbd we are talking about unless the used backend provides the value it is unset by default. And if you manage your home directory using sd-homed unless you explicitly set it it is also unset by default.

I am aware, I kind of want a louder signal than doing nothing [which is a great option, I admit] . I quote myself: > It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'just' not set anything. Why? Telemetry, mainly. I'd rather attestation [or whatever intends to use this] fail and make it apparently deliberate.

Well, to get something to fail you need an implementation that can fail. And since nothing is using this so far there is nothing you can get to fail. In the end something that implements the actual communication would end up probably defaulting to "under 13" or whatever if it somehow fails to retrieve any value (or maybe not, who knows), so I wouldn't realistically see even without this, getting the attestation to "break" would end up unlikely.

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#58

Post by bravetraveler »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #57
bravetraveler wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware, I kind of want a louder signal than doing nothing [which is a great option, I admit] . I quote myself: > It's entirely optional, I get that. I could 'just' not set anything. Why? Telemetry, mainly. I'd rather attestation [or whatever intends to use this] fail and make it apparently deliberate.

Well, to get something to fail you need an implementation that can fail. And since nothing is using this so far there is nothing you can get to fail. In the end something that implements the actual communication would end up probably defaulting to "under 13" or whatever if it somehow fails to retrieve any value (or maybe not, who knows), so I wouldn't realistically see even without this, getting the attestation to "b…

Hypotheticals are truly exhausting! I had a wall of text and chopped most of it off. This started out as a joke and now it's dead, thanks.

The failure/assumption of under-13 or whatever, as a result of manipulation, is fine. I'm not actually trying to solution something though, jeez.

I find it more compelling to say, for instance, "x% of our users have chosen not to share their information"... rather than "y% have not set it". This category would almost surely be about as 'useful' (useless) as the 'do not track' header... and a concern for something other than systemd or even the portal (to a degree).

Re: Store birth date in systemd for age verification

#60

Post by lyu07282 »

tylerritchie wrote: post #43
dirtikiti wrote: post #37

"protecting" children by providing specific ages to data harvesters. as per usual, liberal policy doing the exact opposite thing they claim it does.

for the california legislation there were no "nay" votes. it's disapointing this performatively protective stance permeates both dominant right-of-global-center parties in America, but it is "all of them"

Pretty much the same laws in red and blue states yeah. It always gets confusing when Americans use the word liberal, everyone is a liberal, it never meant *your* liberty.
Post reply on HN