You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
I don’t think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn’t implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.
For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.
I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.
And there clearly exists a use-case for that.
My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Age or identity verification in the hands of private for-profit companies is bad.
I’d rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.
We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.
If nothing comes of it, some of us can say “I’ve told you…”
If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say “See!! Froggies”
If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.
I’m not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
I agree with your second paragraph but I fail to see how the existing unused fields are somehow less dangerous or a “false equivalence” to a new unused DOB field which is significantly harder to use to deanonymize someone than their name, address, and phone number.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there. if the data becomes required then it should not be there. so the result, it should not be there
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
A PR is when the discussion is supposed to happen. It’s an open source project, nothing happens “too late” to discuss. You see that change in the pull request, you can start moaning about it.
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there
Who defines what’s “useless”? You? On what authority?
the discussion happens right now, because i said so, because others are talking about it. and the data is useless when anything can be put in, it’s not used for anything, and it can’t be verified. it fails all three tests in determining usefulness
Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
I don’t think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn’t implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.
For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.
I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.
And there clearly exists a use-case for that.
My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Age or identity verification in the hands of private for-profit companies is bad.
I’d rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.
So why do you not have any problem with the RealName and Email fields in systemd?
please refer to my response
How do commercial distros prevent getting blocked if not through this?
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
Nope
We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.
If nothing comes of it, some of us can say “I’ve told you…”
If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say “See!! Froggies”
If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.
I’m not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
I agree with your second paragraph but I fail to see how the existing unused fields are somehow less dangerous or a “false equivalence” to a new unused DOB field which is significantly harder to use to deanonymize someone than their name, address, and phone number.
Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.
Good outcome.
Yeah, this is a devious plan that has been going on for years, when they added the
realNamefield!I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
So, how about we start freaking out when someone starts making these fields required, instead of right away?
because it’s too late at that point, which is the whole point and issue!
if the field is necessary, but the data is useless, then it shouldn’t be there. if the data becomes required then it should not be there. so the result, it should not be there
A PR is when the discussion is supposed to happen. It’s an open source project, nothing happens “too late” to discuss. You see that change in the pull request, you can start moaning about it.
Who defines what’s “useless”? You? On what authority?
the discussion happens right now, because i said so, because others are talking about it. and the data is useless when anything can be put in, it’s not used for anything, and it can’t be verified. it fails all three tests in determining usefulness
Why hasn’t the discussion started when
realNamewas introduced?Someone may find these data points useful, for whatever reason. No point in being angry at a date field, mate.
let’s also talk about that then. we need to remove that immediately