I don't even know where this rumour came from.

systemd is introducing birthDate as a user json field, if that's what you mean with rumor.

The PR to revert that change was not merged:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41179

So apps can look at it and verify the users age? 🤔

If someone populates it and if apps do it. The "debate" is whether this is something systemd should or should not have done.

I only mean the verification is clearly in the app that uses it then.

It is not something systemd needs. The platform requesting age needs to get it directly from the user.

"Verify" is a strong word, if the age in there isn't actually verified. If I say my realName is Nunya Bissnis, my location is Atlantis and my birthDate is 1970-01-01, who's going to check if that's at all accurate?

It's really a declaration, or an assertion.

Next the OS will have to verify this is correct

Be like grapheneos and say no to age verification

It’s not a rumor, systemd merged a PR that explicitly said it was to allow handling the new age verification laws. Just because they aren’t actually verifying anything doesn’t mean that they didn’t merge code in direct support of the laws. And why in the world would this even be handled at systemd level anyway?

It was added with a note specifically that the implementation was related to a law that was described as stupid.

I think it's pretty clear exactly what this was being put in for, and why two MSFT devs were ready to approve.

There's no "it was just..." about this, it was step one of a coordinated plan that has not been abandoned.

Couldn't reply to me pointing out that this was merged, and was stated to be explicitly to support age verification laws, so you had to lie about it as a meme instead.

Because thats what youre doing right now, lying and spreading misinformation. You can admit it.

Well I still don't dang like it I'll tell you hwat.

Doesn't matter if it's accurate. Now they have more unique data points to help track your digital footprint.

Ideally, we wouldn't need to do age verification at all. But if it's absolutely required, the most privacy-preserving way would be:

1. System administrator verifies the birthdate of the user, stores it on the user account
2. Applications can then ask, "is the current user over 18?" And just gets true/false.

Eh, this would make it 100% useless though.

I think it's fairly reasonable for adults to want to ensure a 10-year-old doesn't get mental health issues by being served hardcore BDSM porn unsupervised, or get scammed by a pig butcher on social media. Of course a curious 10-year-old can't be trusted to enter their real birth date. So, adding this info to a root-managed userdb kinda makes sense. At this point there's nothing to suggest that this age will be verified in any way, other than "the person entering it has write access to userdb". So in the current form it's just another tool for parents to control what their child sees (provided any apps actually use this field in the future).

However, I'd argue just the birth date is the wrong approach to this and it needs to be more granular.

Poettering doesn't work for Microsoft.

The birth date field that was added can be used by age verification processes, but it's not age verification itself.

The source is the source: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/acb6624fa19ddd68f9433fb0838db119fe18c3ed

Takes a birth date for the user in ISO 8601 calendar date format. The earliest representable year is 1900. If an empty string is passed the birth date is reset to unset.

That's it. That's all it does.

Whatever was discussed in the PR, the code does precisely nothing to implement any kind of verification. It's just an optional birth date field, like tons of electronics have had forever.

This is not very 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 of you.

The approver of the pull request does...

It was added specifically for the purpose of two state laws and Brazil.

Trying to weasel it as "this doesnt implement it" is misinformation at best.

I don’t think anyone who read even the first paragraph of the article (at least the one i read) would say they are doing verification. They are simply adding a field for data to be housed if anyone wants to opt in. Instead of putting it in 20 different spots/apps it’s in one place that any third party can reference.

Poettering only very recently left microslop

The requirement to check age is on the provider. It is not the responsibility of the OS to store age and supply it freely to any service that wants it.

This data is stored as a non-privileged birth date.

This means any website can ask for your birth date. Then they store it, and use it for tracking. Private browser? HAH! Not your birth date!

This has N O T H I N G to do with “children.” It’s about Meta trying to escape moderation responsibility.

This is the right wing talking. Slowly putting identity into the OS for tracking. Don’t fall for it (unless you’re the right wing, and then fuck you)

How does one enter an older DOB without causing an underflow?

Because most people apparently don't know the difference between a system manager and an operating system.

Wrong. The earliest date you can set it to is 1900!!! 😠

Yeah like the email address and the full name of the user.

... What do you mean it's blank for 99% of users?

earliest representable year is 1900

(Time to set it to) literally 1984!

Implement it as a s64 instead of a u64. Ugh, honestly. Back when it was a 32 bit integer it made sense to make it unsigned because we'd have run out of numbers by now otherwise. But as of the advent of 64 bit unix time values there's really no reason not to implement it as a signed value smh

But if it's absolutely required

It's not.

Of what?

it’s in one place that any third party can reference.

But why would I want that?

Even if you ignore the whole "this doesn't verify anything" discussion, why would I want to give third parties easy access to personal and potentially sensitive information? I personally am not interested in simplifying data collection for corporate entities who definitely do not give a shit about the safety of my personal data, let alone hypothetical children. I do not know why this data collection needs or would be desired to be implemented within systemd, besides being a direct response to age verification laws saying its an OS providers responsibility to collect it. Arbitrary data collection by private entities is not "useful". My personal data has no business being referenced by random asshats that ask for it. There are so few things in the world that "justify" needing my age that I would suggest it would be easier to make my birth date a permanent data point on my PC. Same goes for the other personal details that systemd already supports. Crazy to imagine anyone actually using those on a personal machine.

You could also just not set it instead of using a nonsensical date

It is stored as a json date string

Age verification could be a usecase. The PR in question just adds a optional date field labeled birth date. If you are mad about age verification (as you should be) feel free to direct your rage elsewhere.

You can if you want

You also could just ignoro it entirely as it is optional

It is just a optional field

Be mad at lawmakers not developers who are trying to make the best of a shitty situation

Age verification could be a usecase.

ITS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE AS WRITTEN IN THE PR.

I will absolutely direct my anger and frustration where it belongs, which includes systemd along with the dumbasses pushing these laws.

As well as you for spreading misinformation. Make no mistake, its deserved.

They ask for it to store a date today, ask for IDs the next. Heck they already want 3d printers to somehow identify if they're printing parts that can be used in guns, but 3d printers don't have that kind of computing power nor should they need that so odds are most companies will require an internet connection and upload to a central server to be analyzed. And thus privacy goes away unintentionally.

All of this was discussed in the PR.

Systemd is present on the vast majority of Linix systems so it made the most sense to put it in systemd. It is an optional field so it is up to applications and distros on weither to use it for something. Age verification laws are legally binding so compliance is not optional.

If you have a problem with age verification call your local lawmaker. Don't attack a bunch of devs who somehow got stuck in the middle.

It enables another dead brained dev to push it further

Little by little

I speak only for myself, but I’m not mad at any developers for following with this. I wish they wouldn’t, but I can’t blame them for following the law to protect themselves.

I still think this is bullshit and just going down the slippery slope. The next thing is “this value doesn’t do anything. Now we need a law that actually checks an ID!” And it just keeps getting worse and worse.

Don’t give them an inch on any of this bullshit. And by them, I do mean the governments trying these stupid laws that, at best, waste taxpayer money and valuable time spent on other worthwhile things.

Nobody gives a fuck about your weaseling technicalities. The salient fact is that this change was made in order to "comply in advance" with totalitarian fuckery. It SIGNALS POLITICAL SUPPORT for it, and that's not okay!

"While our lawyers are fighting it in court, we decided to whip up the barest minimum viable proof of concept so that if it does come to pass, at least it'll be on our terms, and not a rushed piece of easily-exploitable garbage pushed out at the last second" the systemd team, probably

Edit: source, two weeks ago, the pull request conversation: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954#issuecomment-4032221990