this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
65 points (90.1% liked)

Technology

42561 readers
559 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
remington@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
65
Age checks creep into Linux as systemd gets a DOB field (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just what I want in my distro.

After weeks of debate, code to record user age was finally merged into the Linux world's favorite system management daemon.

Pull request #40954 to the systemd project is titled "userdb: add birthDate field to JSON user records." It's a new function for the existing userdb service, which adds a field to hold the user's date of birth:

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 contents of the field will be protected from modification except by users with root privileges.

The change comes after the recent release of systemd 260 but unless it is reverted for some reason, it will be part of systemd 261. One of the justifications is to facilitate the new parental controls in Flatpak, which are still in the draft stage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Can't speak for this person as I wouldn't have volunteered to make these changes myself, but it's possible that he thinks implementing "harmless" versions sooner can provide a legal basis to decline to provide "harmful" versions later.

I'd personally wait for the legal challenges against non-compliant systems before moving into malicious compliance if necessary.

[–] belazor@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If we accept the premise that certain distros will need to comply with age verification laws (school specific ones, distros running on govt machines), then it would be better if that information was securely stored in the system database rather than relying on each school/government agency reinventing the wheel.

I will save my ire and save my effort protesting until age verification, not attestation, makes its way into my distro of choice.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

If we accept the premise

Let's not. They're doing this backwards. If this were actually for the children, identification happens by the content, with the filters set locally.

Not BROADCASTING TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET that a child is browsing.