“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can.
-
@prism @zzt my worry about these ridiculous new laws is that they are either entirely impossible to really implement or will destroy entry into computers for kids.
percieved "violation" of the nonsense laws will be applied at will by oppressive agencies to harass people on demand.
but your point about accessibility is a good one
@prism @zzt i wonder if one route towards overturning these stupid laws is to challenge them in legally accurate but utterly, obviously stupid cases.
like, citing the definition of an "operating system/vendor/developer" to sue CCTV manufacturers or home thermostats or cooking appliances or refrigerators or washing machines for non compliance
-
@zzt They probably will make it illegal to bypass that "attestation" and it will make for a good pretext for a "probable cause" for searches/arrests/investigations and fines/jail time/prison time.
That's by design - make a pointless law that the majority of people would break and enforce it very selectively against anyone with politics straying from "the right party" or being a part of some minority that "the right party" wants to subjugate/oppress/eradicate. And it comes with bonus points for isolating vulnerable groups. That's authoritarian playbook 101.
-
@prism @zzt i wonder if one route towards overturning these stupid laws is to challenge them in legally accurate but utterly, obviously stupid cases.
like, citing the definition of an "operating system/vendor/developer" to sue CCTV manufacturers or home thermostats or cooking appliances or refrigerators or washing machines for non compliance
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
“you advocate for doing nothing as solidarity and yet you denounce [literally doing the thing] even though it’s the same as doing nothing” you realize we can tell when you got your awful opinion from hacker news right?
-
@chiraag @zzt
It's just too bad not everyone has your acumen for Linux, but you don't seem to "get" people if you think all of this even made sense to most of us. (I actually think I'm ok with Linux and you went way beyond my comfort zone)I hope it won't be a surprise if i think the sensible interpretation from my perspective is to assume you know your ideas are not actually possible for normal people, so you are just mansplaining here
@RnDanger I figured OP _would_ know what I was talking about since they brought up systemd's preemptive capitulation in the first place, though. As for whether what I am suggesting is reasonable (removing systemd-userdbd or picking a distro where it is optional), that is *eminently* doable. The only dependence on systemd-userdbd in Debian is systemd-homed, another optional component.
1/?
-
@RnDanger I figured OP _would_ know what I was talking about since they brought up systemd's preemptive capitulation in the first place, though. As for whether what I am suggesting is reasonable (removing systemd-userdbd or picking a distro where it is optional), that is *eminently* doable. The only dependence on systemd-userdbd in Debian is systemd-homed, another optional component.
1/?
@RnDanger Pretending as though systemd is introducing this to some required component (the general thrust of the discussions I have read) is just wrong. I'm not saying it's not an issue - it very much *is* - but, at least for right now, the component within which this has been introduced is completely and utterly optional.
2/?
-
@RnDanger Pretending as though systemd is introducing this to some required component (the general thrust of the discussions I have read) is just wrong. I'm not saying it's not an issue - it very much *is* - but, at least for right now, the component within which this has been introduced is completely and utterly optional.
2/?
@RnDanger My general take on the situation is this: I'm not happy that systemd is complying in advance. That is stupid and we should fight this crap. The _reason_ they introduced it is actually far more worrying (they're talking about *consumers* of that field being stuff like flatpak) and IMO is where the discussion should be focused because those components are far more integrated into general user-facing systems.
3/?
-
@RnDanger My general take on the situation is this: I'm not happy that systemd is complying in advance. That is stupid and we should fight this crap. The _reason_ they introduced it is actually far more worrying (they're talking about *consumers* of that field being stuff like flatpak) and IMO is where the discussion should be focused because those components are far more integrated into general user-facing systems.
3/?
@RnDanger Like, the problem with systemd introducing this isn't the place they introduced it, but rather their rationale for doing so (and not just preemptive compliance). It is just wrong to say that userdbd is some integral system component (it is *not*), but it's a reasonable worry that it might soon *become* something integral. That worry is tied to the steps other components (such as flatpak!) have been taking in this direction, which IMO is far more worrying.
4/4
-
@zzt @MrBerard "age verification code" is a bit of a grandiose term for a field that can store a value and retrieve a value. There is nothing anywhere in systemd that determines how (or even if) a distro decides what value to put into that field.
Even if it does get used by a distro, it is likely to be something along the lines of
"please enter your age. don't lie because that would be naughty > "when creating a new user account.
@losttourist @zzt @MrBerard I’m sure it will stop right there, said the credulous fool.
-
@Unlikelylass @zzt Always has been
-
-
-
@zzt "it's just a little x, it's just one y"
IT IS NEVER "Just" ANYTHING IF IT IS MORE THAN NOTHING. FUCK YOU.
-
@prism @zzt i wonder if one route towards overturning these stupid laws is to challenge them in legally accurate but utterly, obviously stupid cases.
like, citing the definition of an "operating system/vendor/developer" to sue CCTV manufacturers or home thermostats or cooking appliances or refrigerators or washing machines for non compliance
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like,” I said, from a linux system that can play and encode MP3s
@zzt “anyone can ignore laws that aren’t enforced”, I said, as I blatantly jaywalked across another street
-
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
-
@schrotthaufen @zzt @MrBerard Yes, and? If people comply, then they comply. If they don't, they don't. That's literally the whole point, it's up to each individual server operator / user to decide if they wish to play ball or not.
@losttourist @schrotthaufen @zzt @MrBerard until suddenly there's a law in place that mandates your distro, which probably uses shim, will only be able to get a signed cert from Microsoft's UEFI CA signing service when it has submitted its age-verification for review.
And of course, since we gotta protect the children and generally increase security, now every new system sold must enforce UEFI Secure Boot with a strictly regulated set of platform keys. -
