I do not know what you mean by a partner of the authors of this law -
can you point me to evidence for this?
Who were the other partners?
Not sure I understand the question.
What public position have they taken?
I am not aware of any official/formal one. I am just referring to the fact of that merge and the refusal of the revert which reveals the position implicitly. Putting that alongside the partners, it is not difficult to see the direction is definitely not towards ageless Linux.
I loathe systemd in its entirety. But the addition of an optional
field for age storage does not constitute age verification.
Hence my rectification. It is really interesting to see how systemd-supporting distros will react.
The developers who pushed this through provide a place for storage of age.
You can put whatever you like in that field, just as you can store
McLovin as your Real Name.
For now. Yet, it’s a step towards boiling the frog. It’s how things work today.
Age verification is a complex issue, and any position should be based on
a clear understanding of Legal requirements, and proper advice on how
to respond to them.
I doubt any legal advisor would advise not to comply with law. That still doesn’t make the law right per se. Also, as I said earlier, this is rather a legalized justification of planned activity/possibilities. It has nothing to do with protecting children, who are not allowed to use certain apps but it’s fine to let them choose/change their gender without parents even knowing (also legal). Along these lines, I don’t even see a possibility to base a position on clarity and logic. It all comes down to what we have seen, what we are seeing and what is known about the plans of those who push in direction that suits the 1%.
If you tell me that you are against age
verification, are you against it in every case?
I am absolutely for protection of children. I am against the pretense that this is done for such purpose. Politicians who visit particular island and don’t even shy away from that cannot possibly convince me it is not a pretense. Neither can those who kill thousands of children because they “fight terrorism” and call this “great success”.
This is the shortest way to answer your question without going further into the big questions behind it (which are the important ones).
For what it’s worth, if Qubes introduced a mandatory document backed
dob/name/race/sex/photograph/FIN (add your identifying characteristic
here) entry requirement, I’d be out of the door.
That sounds great. I am afraid it is far more complex though and simply stepping out may not help anyone, except one’s consciousness.
How Qubes responds to legislative requirements around the world while
retaining the emphasis on security and privacy is a difficult question,
and the team should not be pressured in to taking ill informed decisions
or making premature statements.
What information is missing or necessary? What ill informed decisions made those who joined the ageless Linux initiative?