You did actually read the post correct? Not just the title? The original poster, Jef, is talking about implementing a Unix socket or a dbus protocol similar to what apple already has. They are literally just referencing their definition for a struct.
So no this will not be ID verification, it won’t ask for face scans, and it won’t necessarily send the data anywhere.
The article is just using the big A word as some boogeyman to generate clicks and further rile up the community.
The systemd change is benign and this is not proof of your slippery slope theory.
Edit: I swear literacy rates in the linux community must be dropping.
I read it and just like the systemd merge, this isn’t the end for this.
We can circle back when it turns into full blown identification standards though if its more comfortable for you to come to terms with the reality then.
Also, “won’t necessarily send the data anywhere” isn’t exactly comforting.
I just want to make sure that we do agree on a few things.
Requiring actual ID verification and/or face scans is bad and cannot be effectively anonymized.
That many of the current bills do not require ID verification or face scans. This includes the California one that the systemd merge request cites as well as the Colorado one that it mostly identical.
The laws in their current form are poorly written and clearly misunderstand how modern general purpose computers work and are referred to.
Given that, I think we can ultimately agree that the NY, UK, Germany, and I think also the Brazil laws are bad and cannot be fixed with simple updates to language.
So let’s focus on the law’s that do not require actual verification since that is what the systemd change cites.
What issues do you have outside of that they are poorly written and ineffective or that they are a slippery slope/frog in a pot/tip of the spear?
This is not about my comfort this is about what these laws actually require rather than some imaginary law that has not even been written yet.
I figured that someone might latch onto that “necessarily” and that’s the great thing about open-source. If that distro/application/os does misuse your data then don’t use it or fork it.
Sure I can chime in here.
You did actually read the post correct? Not just the title? The original poster, Jef, is talking about implementing a Unix socket or a dbus protocol similar to what apple already has. They are literally just referencing their definition for a struct.
So no this will not be ID verification, it won’t ask for face scans, and it won’t necessarily send the data anywhere.
The article is just using the big A word as some boogeyman to generate clicks and further rile up the community.
The systemd change is benign and this is not proof of your slippery slope theory.
Edit: I swear literacy rates in the linux community must be dropping.
I read it and just like the systemd merge, this isn’t the end for this.
We can circle back when it turns into full blown identification standards though if its more comfortable for you to come to terms with the reality then.
Also, “won’t necessarily send the data anywhere” isn’t exactly comforting.
I just want to make sure that we do agree on a few things.
Given that, I think we can ultimately agree that the NY, UK, Germany, and I think also the Brazil laws are bad and cannot be fixed with simple updates to language.
So let’s focus on the law’s that do not require actual verification since that is what the systemd change cites.
What issues do you have outside of that they are poorly written and ineffective or that they are a slippery slope/frog in a pot/tip of the spear?
This is not about my comfort this is about what these laws actually require rather than some imaginary law that has not even been written yet.
I figured that someone might latch onto that “necessarily” and that’s the great thing about open-source. If that distro/application/os does misuse your data then don’t use it or fork it.