[cogman10]

Because the law requires the operating system to take proactive measures to ensure the age is correct.

You can put "Luke Skywalker" into the name fields, or even nothing at all, and there's no legal mandate that those fields be filled in or accurate.

The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS.

For example, if you visit facebook, tinder, or your bank and any of them store and communicate your actual age, the OS is mandated that it must update that field. Google's creepy analytics would also get involved here as if you put your age as a 99 year old, but google analytics show you are more likely to be 20->25 then the OS is supposed to update that age field with the better information from google.

And of course, facebook, google, and every other website can ask your browser for an age range and they are required to report it. Which makes this a symbiotic leaking of information.

All of this is about destroying anonymity on the internet. Today it's the age that needs to be perfect with communication efforts. Tomorrow it'll be the name. And of course, that will all be linked to every social media account.

Why is this bad? In many governments, it isn't. However, this presents a clear mechanism to track and monitor people who dissent with the government.

[dark-star]

> The birthdate, however, has a legal mandate to be correct and checked for correctness by the software developers of the OS.

please tell me which law mandates that the birthdate that I put in a config file on my PC has to be correct?

[cogman10]

It doesn't mandate that you correct it, it mandates that if something is more certain that the OS must update that field.

It's in both the Colorado and California laws.

[dark-star]

so what will keep you from just doing "sudo vim" on that config file afterwards? Right: Nothing

[cogman10]

You're right, you can go in and reset that field. You can also patch systemd to ignore requests to update the field. Nothing stops you the individual from bypassing the law.

The nasty part of the law isn't that a technically minded person can easily circumvent it. The nasty part is that you have to circumvent it and a lot of people likely won't. You circumventing it makes you stick out more than if you just leave it in place as is as the majority of people won't be doing that.

The point I and others are making is this is a law designed to track individuals and it only ramps up from here. And with this being the intent of the law, it's really only a matter of time before "sudo vim" becomes an illegal act. (or an act these governments attempt to make illegal).

[dark-star]

but nobody is tracking anyone yet. The API is not yet in place, in fact there isn't even any idea on how that API should look like. This will likely take a few years to finalize (if ever).

Right now this is just one more field in a database (config file), nothing more and nothing less. Claiming it's the first step to "making sudo illegal" is quite a large stretch, don't you think? If that were the case, Windows DRM, Denuvo, and all those would also have been "the first step in making sudo illegal". Remember, circumventing DRM is against the law for ages now

[Helpline9733]

The FBI for years has had teams of people navigating forums and derailing discussions. The people doing this are paid. Assuming you aren't a fed, you are not paid. Respect yourself and don't do their work for free.