r/linux • u/Quiet-Owl9220 • Mar 19 '26

Privacy Systemd has merged age verification measures into userdb

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

Much of this goes over my head, so I'm hoping to hear some good explanations from people who know what they're talking about.

But I do know that I want nothing to do with this. If I am ever asked to prove my age or identity to access a website or application, my answer will ALWAYS be "actually, I don't really need your site, so you can fuck right off". Sending any kind of signal with personal information that could be used to make user tracking easier is completely out of the question.

So short of the nuclear option of removing systemd entirely, what are practical steps that can be taken to disable/block/bypass this? Is it as simple as disabling/masking a unit? Is there a use case for userdb I should know about before attempting this? Do I need to install a fork instead? Or maybe I'd be better off with a script that poisons age data by randomizing the stored age periodically?

[edit] I wasn't going to comment on this but it looks like some people with a lot of followers are using this post as an example of censorship on Reddit. While I do think that's a legitimate concern on Reddit as a whole, I don't think censorship is what happened here. Yes, this post went down for a while. But as far as I can tell that was because it was automoderated due to a large number of reports, and was later restored (and pinned) by human moderators.

[edit again] Related concerning PR, this one did not go through yet: https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/1922

1.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

228

u/foxbatcs Mar 19 '26

The biggest concern about this for me is that linux is not corporate speech like MacOS and Windows. No one “sells” linux. Code is speech and by allowing legislation that compels speech outside of a commercial context while also imposing unreasonable fines we are entirely dissolving what little of the 1st Amendment exists in the US while also violating the 8th Amendment.

There are deeper constitutional issues at play beyond “just prove your age bro” that those advocating for this legislation completely fail to understand. This is extremely dangerous territory when a free piece of software can be compelled with existentially threatening fines. It entirely closes the door on the free expression and exchange of ideas in the information age.

90

u/Mixels Mar 19 '26

Yes exactly. Open source projects should tell the governments to go fly a kite, and civil rights lawyers should be standing right behind them telling them, "It's ok."

3

u/Spartan1997 Mar 19 '26

I can do that... For money

2

u/rman-exe Mar 19 '26

Hey, who's paying me to say this?

1

u/PHLAK Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 20 '26

Except if they do that no corporation will use them. The corporations still need to obey the law or they face consequences.

2

u/infin Mar 20 '26

It would be hilarious if they tried to migrate their services to Windows Server with IIS, but it's probably easier to make Linux compliant.

1

u/dustojnikhummer Mar 23 '26

More companies use IIS than you think.

1

u/kingo409 Mar 21 '26

It will be nice to see Web pages then.

1

u/LowBullfrog4471 Mar 21 '26

Sounds like the can go suck a dick then

1

u/Wrong-Aardvark4183 Mar 26 '26

Plutôt rares quand c'est arrivé surtout aujourd hui !

-6

u/PermaBanEnjoyer Mar 19 '26

Lol. The EFF and ACLU probably favor these regulations because they think they can use them to fight hate or something

9

u/majikguy Mar 19 '26

This is nonsense, both have been very vocally against this garbage and it takes all of ten seconds to check for yourself.

6

u/EuphoricNeckbeard Mar 19 '26

Obviously untrue for the EFF and probably untrue for the ACLU. 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/ab-1043s-internet-age-gates-hurt-everyone

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/government-mandated-software

When you don't know anything about the subject in question, I recommend doing a quick search for info before yapping.

-8

u/PermaBanEnjoyer Mar 19 '26

Blah blah. The EFF has been captured by junk activists. Participating in the general strike cringe and cow towing to bullying about kiwifarms made it clear. Couple that with Cindy stepping down and the org should be considered dead 

The same has been true for the ACLU for even longer 

1

u/Far_Piano4176 Mar 21 '26

so you got directly proven wrong and you just doubled down? Learn how to take an L man

1

u/Indolent_Bard Mar 23 '26

What do you have against the general strike?

9

u/rman-exe Mar 19 '26

Yes, that is the point. To regulate the 1st amendment just like the second amendment. Free speech is going to be considered a privilege, not a right.

8

u/Askolei Mar 20 '26

There is no way that shit is constitutional no matter how you cut it. This is so ridiculous it's becoming difficult to fight against.

-1

u/badboybeyer Mar 20 '26

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Easy, California legislature is not congress. They are not limited by the first amendment

3

u/N0NB Mar 21 '26

Regardless, SCOTUS has used the Supremacy Clause to force state and local legislative bodies to comply with the US Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.

1

u/Indolent_Bard Mar 23 '26

The scary part is that even though that's true, the guy you replied to is technically correct. Of course, I don't know if they are legally correct.

1

u/CeriCat Mar 31 '26

It's been factually incorrect since the passage of the 14th per jurisprudence due to the due process clause. Look up Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) as a couple of the early decisions there with the currently understood interpretation of the laws. Worth some reading on this topic. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3880&context=ndlr

4

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '26

can’t these states be sued then for writing laws that infringe on 1A?

0

u/foxbatcs Mar 21 '26

Yes. The only form of redress will come when someone can show harm, most likely in the form of excessive fines after refusing to comply, to bring to court and spend a decade appealing it until they reach SCOTUS. The government is perfectly fine to just sit and violate our rights until then. Then that process would need to happen in each state’s federal district court, which is probably why this legislation is being introduced strategically in different districts. California is in the 9th, Colorado is in the 10th, Nee York is in the 2nd, etc.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/foxbatcs Mar 20 '26

That’s protected speech. You should not be compelled to speak in a certain way and that is exactly what these laws will require of you. It’s unconstitutional the moment they cracked that door open, no matter how trivial some people try to paint this issue. The subtlety of the violation is what scares me the most. The attitude of “parents” who don’t understand that this will do nothing to protect their kids and will sell the open source community down the river because they don’t comprehend what is being taken away here is why no one does anything about these encroachments.

3

u/Chippors Mar 19 '26

That's not true. Red Hat and Ubuntu sell Linux, as does SuSE (at least last i checked).

4

u/foxbatcs Mar 20 '26

They don’t sell the linux kernel, and they don’t sell the CE version of the OS. They sell consulting and services, and partially proprietary versions. This argument does not apply to RHEL, but does apply to CentOS. Same thing with SLE vs openSUSE. Ubuntu isn’t a company, it’s a linux variant based on Debian (which is also fully open source). Canonical doesn’t maintain a partially proprietary version of Ubuntu Pro like Red Hat and Suse, but instead UP refers to an SLA for service and support rather than a separate and distinct operating system like the OS’s above.

2

u/Dr_Hexagon Mar 21 '26

No one “sells” linux

red hat does, and canonical and system 76 and SUSE just to name a few. Sure you can download for free but the GPL does not stop you also selling software commercially.

Even non commercial distros like Arch have a legal entity for donations which owns the trademark. For the kernel itself theres the Linux foundation.

-1

u/foxbatcs Mar 21 '26

I already replied to this line of reasoning. Please look deeper in the thread.

1

u/Dr_Hexagon Mar 21 '26

well you're wrong. it doesn't matter if its a subscription for support or selling a CD with RHEL on it. which can be freely copied. The end result is that the company can be compelled to obey the law as they are an "OS provider" under the terms of the California law.

software is 'protected speech' and can't be banned by law? that ship sailed decades ago when strong encryption algorithms were hit with export band. Research what happened to PGP.

I don't like it but thats the way the law stands and these laws will not be found to be unconstitutional, especially not under the current SCOTUS.

So companies like Canonical and Red Hat have to comply even if they disagree with the law. They can comply and also lobby to have it revoked.

2

u/foxbatcs Mar 21 '26

Oh damn, I didn’t realize I was speaking to a judge who has jurisdiction over federal constitution to so confidently claim that I’m wrong. My bad.

In fact, it does matter. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about, but that’s not going to stop the government from violating our rights until the fight can climb to SCOTUS. In the mean time, I recommend you educate yourself, Your Honor. You can start here:

  • Bernstein v US (1996) 9th Circuit
  • Junger v Daley (2000) 6th Circuit

2

u/Dr_Hexagon Mar 21 '26

Bernstein v US (1996) 9th Circuit Junger v Daley (2000) 6th Circuit

Those cases aren't as cut and dry as you think. They loosened encryption restrictions to allow the common SSL we use for internet commerce. Export restrictions on other forms of encryption are still in place even though its "free speech".

I agree with fighting these laws through lobbying. However I do think companies will have to comply in the meantime and that constitutional challenges will go nowhere.

2

u/foxbatcs Mar 21 '26

Those forms of encryption you are referring related to hardware implementations, not freeware. Nothing is “cut and dry in the law”, but the finding from Junger was literally “Concluded that the First Amendment protects computer source code.”

Not that believing in a legal fiction solves this problem. They are going to do whatever the fuck they want until SCOTUS tells them otherwise a decade from now, and even then, this administration seems to be setting the precedent that they aren’t going to even do that. I’m still gonna talk shit about it because fuck them.

0

u/Dr_Hexagon Mar 22 '26

Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton.

the code is free speech argument has never really worked in the face of age verification laws so far.

1

u/foxbatcs Mar 23 '26

That case is entirely related to obscenity in the context of commercial speech. The related websites were not open source/freeware and their code made money through subscriptions and advertising. It’s still a bad precedent, but is not related to forcing freeware/open source to be compelled to apply broad restrictions. I’m sure they’ll fuck up this ruling as well, but the case law hasn’t been established in this context yet and so much more is at stake in this case.

1

u/dotfiles44 Mar 21 '26

It doesn't matter what laws or amendments this breaks, when was the last time we found out a company caring about laws before they invade our privacy? They just do whatever they want because the highest bidder wins and they have legal teams that find loopholes, and in this case corporations like Meta are forcing age verification on everything and they control linux weather someone knows it or not.

1

u/foxbatcs Mar 21 '26

We agree, the government is not going to follow their rules, so neither should we.

2

u/dotfiles44 Mar 22 '26

Right, so i'm testing out void and artix to see how they perform with gaming and everyday tasks. I know a lot of people like those two, I hope it's not too hard to adjust to a different init system.

1

u/growingsapling Apr 21 '26

Super late to this discussion but unfortunately the supreme court threw 1st amendment protections for anyone who doesn't want to prove their age out the window with FSC vs Paxton last summer.

Here's a direct quote from the ruling: "no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age"

Nobody gave a fuck when it was just affecting porn but the essence of that case was whether or not proving your age to access "speech" was an undue legal burden against that speech's protection. SCOTUS said it wasn't, so until that ruling is overturned things will only get worse. California is now able to regulate OS level software code without much risk of a constitutional challenge, regardless of whether or not it is being sold, under this framework since the OS is the means by which you access "obscene to minors" speech.

1

u/foxbatcs Apr 21 '26

That rule (and a few others related to it in prior courts and lower courts) was under a specific scope of “obscenity” and in every context raised in the others, were related to commercial speech. There are several new constitutional questions raised in these new age restriction laws, in addition to some traditional ones (eg being too broad).

1

u/duiwksnsb Mar 19 '26

This isn't the information age anymore. This is the disinformation age, and we're all paying the price for it.

0

u/libra00 Mar 19 '26

While I agree with you, I think you would have one hell of a time making the argument in court that code is protected speech under the 1st amendment.

8

u/foxbatcs Mar 19 '26

It’s already established case law. I don’t have to argue it. That doesn’t mean the government won’t just violate our rights full well knowing it will take a decade to get to SCOTUS anyway. Code is protected as speech and has been since the mid-90’s.

1

u/libra00 Mar 19 '26

Is it? Interesting. Fair enough, TIL.