Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws
in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
The xdg-desktop-portal project is addi...
Fork time? Maybe all the anti-systemd zealots were right all along…
Nope. I’m John Doe, living in Nice Try, Atlantis, and my email is “who@car.es”. But I draw the line at being asked for my birthday (which is 1970-01-01).
The userdb already has fields for other information. Nobody enforces putting anything there, nor verifies the contents. Why should DoB be different? And why should that be on the userdb?
It’s easy to say “just ignore the law” when you’re a nobody on the internet. But also, this isn’t much bowing. More like slightly inclining your head to do the bare minimum.
They’re debating about the best way to make sure that data doesn’t end up where it shouldn’t. They’re not implementing some systemd-level verification requirements. They’re literally just offering a central-ish place to handle storing and securing that data. If anything, this should be preferable to having different implementations with different levels of security standards.
And it’s delusional to think that Linux will collectively be able to evade this requirement, unless the law as a whole ends up overturned (which I very much hope it does). You wanna get pissed at someone for sucking fascist dick, get pissed at the lawmakers passing this crap.
A data field isn’t the hill to fight that battle on. If someone goes and actually implements mandatory verification, I’ll be right there with you, (pitch-)fork ready and ready to burn bridges, but this isn’t it.
dude, can you send me a picture of your government ID? I just wanna see?
Nope. I’m John Doe, living in Nice Try, Atlantis, and my email is “who@car.es”. But I draw the line at being asked for my birthday (which is 1970-01-01).
The userdb already has fields for other information. Nobody enforces putting anything there, nor verifies the contents. Why should DoB be different? And why should that be on the userdb?
Because this design does not come from the project, it is bowing down to a fascist funded movement.
It’s easy to say “just ignore the law” when you’re a nobody on the internet. But also, this isn’t much bowing. More like slightly inclining your head to do the bare minimum.
They’re debating about the best way to make sure that data doesn’t end up where it shouldn’t. They’re not implementing some systemd-level verification requirements. They’re literally just offering a central-ish place to handle storing and securing that data. If anything, this should be preferable to having different implementations with different levels of security standards.
And it’s delusional to think that Linux will collectively be able to evade this requirement, unless the law as a whole ends up overturned (which I very much hope it does). You wanna get pissed at someone for sucking fascist dick, get pissed at the lawmakers passing this crap.
A data field isn’t the hill to fight that battle on. If someone goes and actually implements mandatory verification, I’ll be right there with you, (pitch-)fork ready and ready to burn bridges, but this isn’t it.