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

Liberated Systemd

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Liberated Systemd

#61

Post by SahAssar »

worksonmine wrote: post #38
SahAssar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I leave "Users full name" empty and it's fine. And you're free to not fill out this field aswell. Full name is probably a lot more unique and sensitive than birthdate

Maybe, what's your point? Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right? Computers need to stay what they've always been. Chips that we run our programs on. Linux is the last free (as in freedom) option and they will try to take that away too.

Facts:

There is and has for a long time been a field for full name.

There is now also a field for birthdate.

You are free to fill out neither or either.

Neither have a strong technical reason to be filled.

---

Your position:

You have no problem with the full name, but do have a problem with the birthdate.

You also agree that the field that you have no problem with (full name) is more sensitive than the one you don't (birthdate).

---

Have I summarized the situation correctly?

Do you not see the discrepancy in your position?

Re: Liberated Systemd

#62

Post by Ferret7446 »

stabbles wrote: post #5

The other day someone commented on this site that in the age of agentic coding "maintaining a fork is really not that serious of and endeavor anymore." and that's probably the case. I'm sure continuously rebasing "revert birthday field" can be fully automated. Then the only thing remaining is convincing a critical mass that development now happens over at `Jeffrey-Sardina/systemd` on GitHub.

At some point people will realize that not having an optional data field might not be worth the effort of indefinitely rebasing a revert and recompiling, since they could just not set the field for their user account by doing nothing

Re: Liberated Systemd

#63

Post by worksonmine »

SahAssar wrote: post #61
worksonmine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, what's your point? Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right? Computers need to stay what they've always been. Chips that we run our programs on. Linux is the last free (as in freedom) option and they will try to take that away too.

Facts: There is and has for a long time been a field for full name. There is now also a field for birthdate. You are free to fill out neither or either. Neither have a strong technical reason to be filled. --- Your position: You have no problem with the full name, but do have a problem with the birthdate. You also agree that the field that you have no problem with (full name) is more sensitive than the one you don't…

> Have I summarized the situation correctly?

No, I don't care about either. It can be argued the full name is technically useful for the system administrators on a multi-user system, but I digress. They can add whatever field they want as long as it's optional.

I do however have a problem with regulating what an OS is required or allowed to do and what it has to collect and expose. Linux wasn't created in the US and there's no reason to comply with the California regulators. Will an empty birthdate field really comply with the law? Is that a fact as you claim?

> Do you not see the discrepancy in your position?

I see you reading more than what I'm actually saying. Breath and re-read what I've said and you will notice that I haven't (until this comment) mentioned my position.

While you're at it maybe answer the questions I asked you instead of replying with more questions, I'll quote them for you:

>> Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right?

Re: Liberated Systemd

#64

Post by M95D »

SahAssar wrote: post #60
M95D wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does not get sent to anyone I bet the browser gets it.

The browser also has access to all of your files (at least unless strictly sandboxed). If the browser exposes it to websites isn't that a browser issue instead of a systemd issue? Like if a browser offered up full unfettered filesystem access without any prompt or consent that'd be a browser issue, not a linux issue, right?

My files don't contain my birth date, or at least not in a format easy to parse without AI.

So... I don't really get your argument. If two pieces of software conspire against my privacy, one to store the data and one to transmit it, why can't I blame them both?

Re: Liberated Systemd

#65

Post by dark-star »

cogman10 wrote: post #48
dark-star wrote: post #15

systemd also stores the real name of the user using this computer in the same user record. Why not remove that as well, as it could uniquely identify the user of the computer? Or the uuid field...

Because the law requires the operating system to take proactive measures to ensure the age is correct. You can put "Luke Skywalker" into the name fields, or even nothing at all, and there's no legal mandate that those fields be filled in or accurate. The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS. For example, if you visit facebook, tinder, o…

> The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS.

please tell me which law mandates that the birthdate that I put in a config file on my PC has to be correct?

Re: Liberated Systemd

#66

Post by dark-star »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #50
dark-star wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes nowhere of course, but people seem to think that the age verification laws that are currently being drafted everywhere somehow make this the obvious next step. They don't understand that it's still all on your computer and you can of course set the birthdate to whatever you want (or not set it at all). tl;dr: it's a tinfoil hat fork

So what’s the point of the “feature” then?

To make it easier for software to get a sane default? Same as why you put in your real name, it'll be used as default. For example I don't want to have to select my birth year on every website I visit. If there's a way for the browser to get a default year, then that's good for me.

Steam also asks you for your birth year all the time when visiting some of their pages, it's annoying as hell because you can't just type the year, you have to select it from a drop down list. They store it in a cookie, which is cool as it makes the process more streamlined. So you're also saying that this is a bad thing?

There is no law requiring you to put the correct birth date in a config file on your PC, the same as there is no law requiring you to write the correct birthdate on your wall calendar or whatever.

Re: Liberated Systemd

#67

Post by egorfine »

gzread wrote: post #55
egorfine wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are. I think this is the main reason why sane people are revolting against age groups, because mandatory KYC to use a locked-down Linux begins exactly with that: a small integer field in userdb.

Wouldn't it begin with one of the several other fields that already exist there?

Ah, because they need to move parts today to demonstrate that the parts are movable. This is a today's foot in the today's door.

Re: Liberated Systemd

#68

Post by cogman10 »

dark-star wrote: post #65
cogman10 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the law requires the operating system to take proactive measures to ensure the age is correct. You can put "Luke Skywalker" into the name fields, or even nothing at all, and there's no legal mandate that those fields be filled in or accurate. The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS. For example, if you visit facebook, tinder, o…

> The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS. please tell me which law mandates that the birthdate that I put in a config file on my PC has to be correct?

It doesn't mandate that you correct it, it mandates that if something is more certain that the OS must update that field.

It's in both the Colorado and California laws.

Re: Liberated Systemd

#69

Post by dark-star »

cogman10 wrote: post #68
dark-star wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS. please tell me which law mandates that the birthdate that I put in a config file on my PC has to be correct?

It doesn't mandate that you correct it, it mandates that if something is more certain that the OS must update that field. It's in both the Colorado and California laws.

so what will keep you from just doing "sudo vim" on that config file afterwards? Right: Nothing

Re: Liberated Systemd

#70

Post by cogman10 »

dark-star wrote: post #69
cogman10 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't mandate that you correct it, it mandates that if something is more certain that the OS must update that field. It's in both the Colorado and California laws.

so what will keep you from just doing "sudo vim" on that config file afterwards? Right: Nothing

You're right, you can go in and reset that field. You can also patch systemd to ignore requests to update the field. Nothing stops you the individual from bypassing the law.

The nasty part of the law isn't that a technically minded person can easily circumvent it. The nasty part is that you have to circumvent it and a lot of people likely won't. You circumventing it makes you stick out more than if you just leave it in place as is as the majority of people won't be doing that.

The point I and others are making is this is a law designed to track individuals and it only ramps up from here. And with this being the intent of the law, it's really only a matter of time before "sudo vim" becomes an illegal act. (or an act these governments attempt to make illegal).

Post reply on HN