Not sure why this issue is so problematic? Wait and see what they implement and how. No one even knows yet how or when? I have a wait and see attitude.
As I understand it, it’s just a way to store the information. Whether that should be in systemd is a discussion for another day!
It’s not implemented yet. If they were to do it, systemd probably would be the place given it’s already been the “center piece” of the system. It’s bad news for all distros which use systemd, including EOS. Whether you like/approve the age verification or not, it’s out of your control.
There are teams working on it. I haven’t seen any that are considering systemd, have you?
It really needs to be implemented at the desktop level and the desktops work without systemd. That is why I see this as something that probably won’t be implemented in systemd in the long run.
Hopefully everyone can get on board with this liine of thinking and we won’t see any more scares regarding age verification (or at least know how to advocate against them). I know EOS is trying to navigate this right now as seen above. I’m just hoping there’s something the communities of different distros can do in response to systemd’s actions. I just started on EOS not long ago and I love it. Would hate to see them impacted by California’s crap legislation. The rest of the country here and the world doesn’t want to be impacted by one state’s poor decision.
@SweetLinguica welcome to the Forum and the OS.
And yes, i hope you are right.
Welcome to the forum, enjoy. 
I honestly do not understand what all this excitement is about. Reading / writing / querying the date of birth in a user record is not a big deal. There is no age verification.
It is because “systemd adds the ability to store a new field” won’t bring in a lot of revenue on youtube.
You should probably try to figure out what systemd did, before deciding to post such an inflammatory and embarassing thing. If anything, it’d be Arch devs who are ultimately responsible for such things, as EOS is essentially taking most packages from the Arch repositories in the first place.
Madness… madness and stupidity.
Up so far there hasn’t been an official statement from the Arch devs according to the upcoming legislation challenges. There has been a discussion on the general mailing list, yes. You can access it here. But ultimately, there isn’t an official answer to the question how Arch would handle these laws. The question was posted on March 7th. And the latest reply within that topic was posted 13 days ago.
But just let me point out some arguments out of that post. If an distribution would actively ban the use of their software within a certain state / country - it would ultimately not comply to the open source principles.
Additionally, in case of the Californian law, which not only would require an age verification on the OS system level, it also does directly states :
To indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user … to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed."
In short, that bill is written with based on the assumption of the given software distribution channels as pioneered by Apple with their App store, google’s playstore and Microsofts store. But in no way it takes into account the software packaging solutions as used in the open source community. Which are totally different, as they’re distributing software for free, per definition, more or less.
From my point of view: Either the open source community would find a loop hole. Or they’ll grant an exception / adjust the legislation accordingly.
I also don’t think banning the software in a jurisdiction would have much legal impact.
But I don’t think the distros will be the first ones to implement this. It needs a core software implementation built and then the distros can determine if/how they will address it.
I don’t think there can be an official answer by e.g. Arch or EOS. It’s like software patents and that you’re not allowed to distribute patented codecs in the U.S. Yeah, let’s quickly reality-check pacman on that one.
These laws are not written with - in the grand scheme of things - niche FOSS projects in mind. It will take a while to figure things out. Most FOSS entities don’t have the money to hire lawyers - esp. proactively. Big U.S. FOSS companies are going to cover their behind by implementing something that follows the letters of the law but are inconsequential in execution (just add this repo for the codecs/fill in whatever you want in this optional field). Since these big companies often pay the devs we see those changes pop up in big projects like systemd now.
Meanwhile some minor community projects are virtue signaling by “blocking access”, 90% of comments in discussions are best case uninformed or - worst case - ragebait farming like the Lunduke slop.
There are comments on this thread that specifically mention the fact that open-source software is being considered as an exception to this type of legislation in some places. It’s clearly something thought for companies that can be found liable and that’s why there have been even parodies about it within the Linux ecosystem, because the text just doesn’t make a lot of sense in its context.
Personally, I don’t see the issue with waiving any kind of responsibility in certain places that require very problematic things to be implemented by law. Freedom and human rights are earned, not granted by some authority. People shouldn’t expect the rest of the world to adapt to their abusive local legislation.
I have some simple questions. I’m just an end user - not that technically inclined but -
Doesn’t this include Microsoft and Apple? How are they going to respond? Remember this even includes mobile devices.
Under 1798.500 (i) it looks like the “user” is a child that’s the primary user. How will that be determined?
Who is going to determine exactly what the “signal” is? How will it be conveyed back and forth? This could be a real problem giving the amount of players involved.
Even governor Newsom said this will probably need to be amended. He’s also indicated that it would be very difficult to implement.
Hi, I don’t have a good answer to your questions, for I’m neither good at reading laws not I belong to a jurisdiction where these laws are coming in place.
My day job is in the software domain, but in an industry which is highly regulated. Reading all those regulations and ensuring our software complies is one thing. A bigger task, or pain you could say, is the fact that these regulations were written by people who have no knowledge of how software is built or the current best practices of software development life cycle. Also, the government is directly involved so some of these rules we comply with are bureaucratic rather than technical. Add to it, many of those who wrote these laws are from an older generation, so their final vision of how these rules are to be implemented in very different from current ground reality. But those who sign these rules are not the ones sitting in front of workstations. They have no clue about the gross inefficiency and vagueness that we face everyday while working with regulations.
So my response to your questions, based on my little experience in other side of the planet, is that rules make zero sense because lawmakers have no clue what software really is and the burden of implementation & compliance will not be eased out. Big companies have legal departments who will do the job, but a linux distribution maintained by people in their free times can obviously not spend time & effort into compliance with laws that aren’t even precise.
edit: this is my personal stance and not representative/affiliated with any FOSS project I work/worked with
I really don’t see why People like Apple and Microsoft don’t act more like a Alcohol company and argue that responsibility is the responsibility of the distributor not the Manufacturer. Imagine if Budweiser had to pay seven thousand per child that got a hold of one of its beers. Seems like a discriminatory Law if it is in fact about “The Children” and At Least in the US will probably be challenged eventually. However If the challenge comes next year it will take about 10 years for a real decision to be made depending on how many times they appeal. Many Say this is against the Constitution of the US so its going to be interesting. I just want to see them Drag a 12 year old into court so they can ask the Judge for 50 million from damages of Their OS not having Age Verification.
This is indeed interesting. I don’t have knowledge about US laws/constitution apart from the 2nd amendment that everyone in the Internet and abroad seems to know. 
I have not stumbled into any info considering how this law would even be applied and used in any realistic way. Because in my opinion it’s impossible to make sure that you are indeed that age you have inputted into system.
What realistic actions can the distributor take in that scenario?
These OS companies are also very adamant that they grant the user a license to use their software, which the user usually has to confirm before using the product. The distributor is not part of that relationship.