| ▲ | PunchyHamster 2 days ago |
| IIRC systemd already started implementing some hooks for age verification API |
|
| ▲ | novafunc 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| systemd added a field where users can add their date of birth. It's completely optional. It's not implementing age implementation, but can be used as a place to store a DOB in an age verification system. |
| |
| ▲ | LukeShu 2 days ago | parent [-] | | NB that you could already add your own freeform fields; it just added that field to userdbctl and friends. |
|
|
| ▲ | miohtama 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AFAIK they were implemented by Microsoft staff. |
| |
| ▲ | LukeShu 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It was not. It was implemented by Dylan Taylor, an outside contributor who works at a fintech company in North Carolina, and has made it his hobby to submit PRs implementing age verification to all kinds of projects. The systemd maintainer who clicked "merge" (Luca Boccassi) does work at Microsoft. | | |
| ▲ | dismalpedigree 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like Dylan needs a better hobby. | |
| ▲ | voakbasda a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would love to understand his motives, because my first impression is not a positive one. This is not freedom-loving behavior of a patriotic US citizen. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | trhway 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| how would it work in the age of everything virtual, from containers to VMs, even an OS instance running in a browser, with OS/kernels being spanned in sub-seconds and existing even for just one call with no user interaction. Are they going to inherit age bracket from supervisor/parent process? Which of course wouldn't work for AWS/GCP, and many other cases. It looks to me like it would require something similar to security labels implementation. |
| |
| ▲ | xeonmc 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Simple. If unconfigured, user birthdate should default to 1970-01-01 | | |
| ▲ | stockresearcher a day ago | parent [-] | | No. The stupid-ass law [1]: > "Internet-enabled device" means a smartphone, tablet, or
personal laptop or desktop computer that provides cellular or wireless connectivity, is capable of connecting to the
Internet, runs an operating system, and is capable of
downloading and running applications. Enumerate all network interfaces. Are any of them cellular or wireless? No? Then the law doesn’t apply. [1] https://my.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/104/HB/PDF/10400HB... | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere a day ago | parent [-] | | Finally, my insistence on wired Ethernet pays off. It sounds like you could even get away with a wireless USB dongle, as it’s not part of the computer. | | |
| ▲ | tosti 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's so much room for interpretation in there. I share my laptop with the kids, so not personal. My other computer is a tower / htpc / 19" / any other form factor than a desktop. It can only connect to a WLAN (which need not have a gateway to the Internet, who knows). It will not download and run applications by itself unless hacked, certainly not any binaries (lol gentoo) because the user-writable filesystems are noexec. "Runs an operating system" is about the only one that has its box ticked >99% of the time. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nunez a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably stuff it KMS and expose via EC2 metadata...somehow |
|
