I disagree. While I totally understand that it is an optional feature that can enabled and enforced only by others, I am not happy that the developers of systemd rushed to include it into the JSON file with the user info. I would expect the developers to be a bit more resistant to requests by two US states and Brazil. Why are they making it so easy? I guess we will see a resurgence of systemd-free dirstros.
In at least Illinois, this is still in the proposal phase. The bad news is that there are also more draconian proposals that require government issue IDs.
(1) Anbieter von Betriebssystemen, die von Kindern und Jugendlichen üblicherweise genutzt werden im Sinne des § 16 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 6, stellen sicher, dass ihre Betriebssysteme über eine den nachfolgenden Absätzen entsprechende Jugendschutzvorrichtung verfügen. Passt ein Dritter die vom Anbieter des Betriebssystems bereitgestellte Jugendschutzvorrichtung an, besteht die Pflicht aus Satz 1 insoweit bei diesem Dritten.
(3) In der Jugendschutzvorrichtung muss eine Altersangabe eingestellt werden können.
It might be debatable if this would even apply to Linux (its basically the same AS with the laws from california), since the law requires “distributors of operating systems” to implement this (who is the distributor) and it might be debatable if Linux falls under the definition of “operating systems usually used by child’s and teenagers”.
Anbieter eines Betriebssystems eine natürliche oder juristische Person, die Betriebssysteme bereitstellt,
A distributor of an operating system is a person or legal entity who provides operating systems.
It is extremely vague, it could be everyone from the creators of the distribution, to the person/company running the download mirror, down to the person who does the installation.
Without some court rulings to bring some guidelines and practical applications of the law there is the risk that everyone handling a non-compliant OS could be judged under the law if someone under 18 could get access to to OS or a System running it.
I disagree. While I totally understand that it is an optional feature that can enabled and enforced only by others, I am not happy that the developers of systemd rushed to include it into the JSON file with the user info. I would expect the developers to be a bit more resistant to requests by two US states and Brazil. Why are they making it so easy? I guess we will see a resurgence of systemd-free dirstros.
4 US states; California, New York, Colorado, and Illinois.
In at least Illinois, this is still in the proposal phase. The bad news is that there are also more draconian proposals that require government issue IDs.
Also germany too
Where are you getting this information from, that Germany is requiring age verification on an OS level?
From the law:
§12 Jugendmedienschutzstaatsvertrag: https://www.landesrecht-bw.de/bsbw/document/jlr-JMedienSchStVtrGBWV10StVtr-P12
Interesting, didnt knew about that one.
It might be debatable if this would even apply to Linux (its basically the same AS with the laws from california), since the law requires “distributors of operating systems” to implement this (who is the distributor) and it might be debatable if Linux falls under the definition of “operating systems usually used by child’s and teenagers”.
Not sure if this is helpfull:
https://www.landesrecht-bw.de/bsbw/document/jlr-JMedienSchStVtrGBWV10StVtr-P3
A distributor of an operating system is a person or legal entity who provides operating systems.
It is extremely vague, it could be everyone from the creators of the distribution, to the person/company running the download mirror, down to the person who does the installation.
Without some court rulings to bring some guidelines and practical applications of the law there is the risk that everyone handling a non-compliant OS could be judged under the law if someone under 18 could get access to to OS or a System running it.
That is indeed very vague