[worksonmine]

I believe Debian doesn't ask for a e-mail address on installation, but the username is obviously necessary if you're going to login. I leave "Users full name" empty and it's fine.

The e-mail address also has a use, for important notifications. There are cases where the OS tries to send an email. But as I mentioned, I don't even know where to set it I've never been prompted and if I was I would leave it empty.

[gzread]

Any app that has access to your age category has access to your home directory where much juicier things live. Probably including your email address, and all your passwords.

[worksonmine]

I'm a little special and use a hack so I don't even have to provide my e-mail address on git commits to prevent leaking it in my git history. So probably not in my case, but I understand your concern and a lot can be done to improve OS privacy. But "they already know what you eat for breakfast" is not a valid argument to reduce privacy further.

[SahAssar]

> I leave "Users full name" empty and it's fine.

And you're free to not fill out this field aswell. Full name is probably a lot more unique and sensitive than birthdate

[worksonmine]

Maybe, what's your point?

Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right?

Computers need to stay what they've always been. Chips that we run our programs on. Linux is the last free (as in freedom) option and they will try to take that away too.

[SahAssar]

Facts:

There is and has for a long time been a field for full name.

There is now also a field for birthdate.

You are free to fill out neither or either.

Neither have a strong technical reason to be filled.

---

Your position:

You have no problem with the full name, but do have a problem with the birthdate.

You also agree that the field that you have no problem with (full name) is more sensitive than the one you don't (birthdate).

---

Have I summarized the situation correctly?

Do you not see the discrepancy in your position?

[worksonmine]

> Have I summarized the situation correctly?

No, I don't care about either. It can be argued the full name is technically useful for the system administrators on a multi-user system, but I digress. They can add whatever field they want as long as it's optional.

I do however have a problem with regulating what an OS is required or allowed to do and what it has to collect and expose. Linux wasn't created in the US and there's no reason to comply with the California regulators. Will an empty birthdate field really comply with the law? Is that a fact as you claim?

> Do you not see the discrepancy in your position?

I see you reading more than what I'm actually saying. Breath and re-read what I've said and you will notice that I haven't (until this comment) mentioned my position.

While you're at it maybe answer the questions I asked you instead of replying with more questions, I'll quote them for you:

>> Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right?

[SahAssar]

> Do you think it's a good idea for operating systems to comply with 1 or 2 exceptionally retarded state laws? The full name is as far as I know never exposed to websites right?

I think it's a good thing for OS'es to have the capability to comply with laws when it does not impose undue burden on users or developers. This is to avoid there being 40 different forks/patches of a system that would probably be less transparent than having it in the upstream project.

Whether that capability is activated should always be optional. This field is optional.

Regarding this info being exposed to websites is not up to systemd. If for example firefox were to expose this info to websites without my consent I'd support a fork of firefox or stop using firefox.

As long as the info does not leave my computer I feel it is fearmongering to call it mass surveillance.

[worksonmine]

> Regarding this info being exposed to websites is not up to systemd. If for example firefox were to expose this info to websites without my consent I'd support a fork of firefox or stop using firefox.

> As long as the info does not leave my computer I feel it is fearmongering to call it mass surveillance.

You have to consider the timing and context of the change. What systemd does here is enabling Firefox to share that data (I'm guessing they'll be the last to comply though, Chrome and Safari will jump on it). If you would choose a fork of Firefox over Firefox exposing your data to websites, why are you so eagerly defending systemd exposing the same data to applications?

I tend to apply the same principles to all and react as soon as possible instead of waiting until it's too late. What use is there even of the field if it only stays on your machine, I assume you remember your own birthday?

[johnisgood]

There are BSDs as well. I wonder how FreeBSD or OpenBSD is going to comply, if at all. There may be a way out of it, too, I am not sure. Perhaps a no-op.

I also wonder how non-systemd Linux is going to handle it. I mean ultimately it may be baked into the kernel in some way or another. It would be pretty sad though.

In any case, I agree. This is just the first step.

[gzread]

I think if there's a law saying, like, GUIs must show stars when you enter your password unless the user clicks the button to make it visible, complying with it is good. Some laws are actually alright.