birth date field is ineffective, non-compliant, and introduces unnecessary data collection

[BURNNNNNN]

This PR #4290 introduces a required birth date field.

However, if the intention is to align with age-related legal frameworks, the current implementation is not compliant and may create a false sense of legal coverage.

Self-declared age is NOT legally sufficient

In Brazil, age-related restrictions generally cannot rely solely on self-declaration.
Examples of what is NOT considered valid verification:

• Just asking “are you over 18?”
• Letting the user input a birth date freely
• No validation or proof mechanism

[h8d13]

Too late its already in systemd, which means archinstall will likely just follow and so will xdg

The beauty of opensource is that you can remove all the garbage and still have a fully functional system that never needed any of this

[fish4terrisa-MSDSM]

This PR #4290 introduces a required birth date field.

However, if the intention is to align with age-related legal frameworks, the current implementation is not compliant and may create a false sense of legal coverage.

Self-declared age is NOT legally sufficient

In Brazil, age-related restrictions generally cannot rely solely on self-declaration. Examples of what is NOT considered valid verification:

• Just asking “are you over 18?”
• Letting the user input a birth date freely
• No validation or proof mechanism

Werid. You call out self declared age verification meanwhile most users isnt under the control of that law and the entities pushed it.
For the self declaration problem, any more "safer" way to verfiy age is a direct violation to users privacy, since it require a untrusted third party to handle private information. Remind you, even if that 3rdparty is qualified in areas like Brazil, it's still not approved in the areas most other users live and thus none of these users should provide their information to such 3rdparty. It's almost impossible to implement proper validation without puting the majority of other users under risk.

[BURNNNNNN]

@fish4terrisa-MSDSM I'm not criticizing self-declared age; I'm criticizing the age verification law as a whole. The point of my post is that PR #4290 is being pushed based on the law, and my critique is that implementing it is pointless if it doesn't actually comply with the law. The issue is meant to try to stop the implementation of something that makes no sense: a poorly written law, with a poorly implemented PR.

[Saren-Arterius]

To comply with Brazil age verification mechanisms, I believe a third party service must be used, similar to KYC process in business, which is harmful to privacy and user freedom. Even if it can be done by some sort of local AI models and eliminate privacy problems, it is still hostile to user.

I believe that adding a birth date field is not a compliance to Brazil laws, but just enough to deal with California's AB1043, as their bill requires the age field to be sent to an "app" as an API param or env to facilitate content filtering. (which is another cans of worms when it goes to linux utils and package managers)

That said, I do not support any kind of age fields or verification mechanisms. It's because some bored politicians pretend to be good people by introducing laws nobody wants, instead of dealing with real politics. In fact, these kinds of stupid laws is harmful to linux users around the world, and not just some users in the US. If this is part of the global effort to kill FOSS, this is the beginning.

If Arch Linux maintainers all live in those US states or countries, or their sponsorship is threatened, then I would say it will be understandable when they have to do it. For Brazil, I will be waiting if they will be funny enough to require 3rd party KYC service in UEFI. It should strictly become a problem only to citizens there, not us Arch Linux users.