In whose eyes? They have lobbyists backing them, and a general public who doesn’t know any better, or care to know.

Exposing the stupidity is a great goal, running headfirst into the “Who will think of the children!1!!” wall… not so much.

AB 1043 passed the California Assembly 76–0 and the Senate 38–0. Not a single legislator voted against it.

1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation

This device does not collect, store, or transmit the age of its user. This is intentional.

Is there any reason to believe they won’t want to make an example out of intentional violators?

Yes, I get that they may want verification with government ID… but unless they do it at a firmware level, anything above a FOSS Linux kernel on my own unlocked hardware, is fully under my control.

So far, it sounds to me like “age verif theatre” as applied to single user “jailbroken” systems. If they added this on a locked down Android system, as a requirement for network access (note: this is an actual proposal being floated around) then that would be of some concern… but systemd? 🤨

QUESTION: if I run my own system with local accounts, full root access, and no remote accounts… why should I care about whether systemd “MAY BE ABLE” to store someone’s date of birth?

Sounds to me like, for all I care, they could add fields for ethnicity, religion, d size, political orientation, colonic maps, or whatever else they want.

If it’s to build systems shared with underage family members, schools, or other public system… I personally DGAF.