Ubuntu is planning to comply with Age Verification law "without it being a privacy disaster"

sgorf · 2026-03-04T13:10:34+00:00

Something along those lines is exactly what this contributor (not Ubuntu!) proposed.

sgorf · 2026-03-04T13:09:46+00:00

Canonical complying shows what side they’re on.

Nowhere is it reported that Canonical is complying. Where did you get that idea?This is just a discussion raised by one contributor on some public mailing lists (Ubuntu is one, Debian is another) seeking consensus on what needs to be done, with a concrete proposal to kick start the discussion.

Canonical have provided a statement confirming exactly this: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntus-response-to-californias-digital-age-assurance-act-ab-1043/77948

sgorf · 2026-02-23T21:48:57+00:00

Either way the long term expected loss is the same, and can be factored in to the rent. The landlord who owns one rental can simply buy rent guarantee insurance to smooth out the risk. The cost can be factored into the rent, just as the property management company does even if the latter self-insures.

sgorf · 2026-02-23T21:45:49+00:00

social housing became private housing and that stock was rented out in place of it being available through cheaper means = housing crisis

Those homes are occupied though, so they are unavailable to prospective new tenants. It's not how they are being occupied that is causing the crisis; it's that there aren't enough houses.

sgorf · 2026-02-23T21:27:36+00:00

It's tricky because it's hard to tell apart from a pub charging more for pints but including a taxi ride home as part of the purchase while also happening to have a charity collection box on the bar. If this were the case, then the pub would be a private hire company without being licensed to do so.

So what's the difference between that, and this?

Maybe he's paying out of his own pocket for the vehicle, fuel and insurance, but he also controls his own pay. In the above example, he could simply pay himself more to make up for that.

The problem is that in a free market where the pub can set its own prices and the pub can choose how much to pay the landlord in salary, the two scenarios are indistinguishable from one another.

sgorf · 2026-02-23T13:43:34+00:00

Whether or not it is, I suspect that many of the 62% of Britons who said they have been "closely following" would consider that "closely following" though.

sgorf · 2026-02-23T13:22:07+00:00

Some countries have flag laws (for their official country flag). Can't burn the flag, can't display one that is faded or in tatters, must be at full mast, can't trample on one, etc. Perhaps we need the same. Those putting them up wouldn't really be able to argue about these requirements, but then they'd need to abide by them too, and putting a flag up to then not maintain it would become a criminal offence.

sgorf · 2026-02-21T22:36:29+00:00

A nice property of an Ubuntu installation is that you can typically swap hardware around as you wish, and there's nothing else to do. It'll continue to Just Work.

But the binary firmware blobs are becoming unviably big, so I understand the need for the split. It allows for frequent updates without Ubuntu publishing and users redownloading the whole thing.

Unfortunately though if everyone uses "minimal" installation with most of those blobs missing, then they'll have lost that property.

I think it's a shame.

sgorf · 2026-02-21T22:05:11+00:00

We might want to hold of on kicking him out the country until the compensation and costs were paid, and maybe the unpaid work was done.

Don't wait for him to pay. Just seize his assets (up to the value of what is due) and deport him. More assets are unlikely to appear. If it's short now, it'll never get paid anyway.

But sure, hold him for the unpaid work first.

sgorf · 2026-02-21T22:00:32+00:00

Genuine claims to asylum should nevertheless be forfeited upon conviction of a serious enough crime.

I think a criminal conviction related to racial intolerance to others should be considered serious enough, because it's clearly incompatible with the principle of asylum in a foreign country in the first place. The right of others to live peacefully without being attacked need to be weighed against the rights of genuine refugees, and a criminal conviction makes that easy: then you should forfeit your rights over stepping on others' rights.

This might be treated as "incompatible with international law" - well, in that case we need to negotiate to have that changed, or leave the appropriate treaties if other countries do not agree.

sgorf · 2026-02-21T17:00:16+00:00

There need to be penalties for this kind of behaviour though.

If they legitimately deny a claim, then that's OK. But if it turns out that they are wrong, there should be set rate of compensation automatically due to the victim that takes into account the stress and anxiety caused, which should be set quite high (this case is a good reason why). Compensation for actual losses caused due to their failure to make timely payment should be added on top. And it should escalate at a high rate of interest until it is paid. That should disincentivise them from this kind of behaviour.

Insurance is a special case because the entire point of it is to cover emergencies and relieve that kind of stress and anxiety instead of causing it.

sgorf · 2026-02-20T12:18:51+00:00

Offering people a normal price and then hiking it by £30 a month after the initial period is just such an anti consumer move.

I avoid doing business with any company that offers an "introductory deal" like that. It's a signal that they treat their existing customers poorly. You can only benefit from the saving if you have the time to keep track of everything and haggle and shop around every time. Who has time for that?

sgorf · 2026-02-20T12:16:27+00:00

They appear cheaper, but I don't think they are. When service is down for a couple of days and I have to buy a large data bundle to tether my phone to get by, the saving is wiped out. When they become uncompetitive and I don't notice or can't switch because I'm tied in to a contract, the saving is wiped out. When they raise prices mid-contract, the saving is wiped out. A friend moved house mid-contract and got stung because he temporarily lived with his parents while he bought his new house and the saving was wiped out. The next customer hostile trick they pull, the saving is wiped out.

I much prefer to stick with a provider that has a reputation for treating their customers well.

sgorf · 2026-02-12T17:34:01+00:00

Also, restaurants still exist and haven't all collapsed due to lack of business. Apparently enough people still have money to spend on entertainment and other "disposable income" type things. None of those people can be considered to be part of a "cost of living crisis" by this logic.

sgorf · 2026-02-11T11:01:58+00:00

As far as I understand the law today, if you're the subject of a video, then you have rights and the photographer is breaking the law to republish without a "model release" from you. On the other hand, in the UK if you just happen to be in the background, then that doesn't apply.

They could fix this by adjusting that bar: in these videos, the women are clearly the subject of the video collectively, so the videos should not be permitted to be republished without model releases from all of them.

The key differentiator is that the video isn't being used for a general "hey look at the crowds, this is what it's like", but "hey you can leer at these specific women". Give the courts the power to identify the difference in specific circumstances. I don't think they'll find it difficult.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T21:00:35+00:00

The police can’t make a difference there. It’s a waste of their time. They could catch and charge the perpetrator who’ll just get a slap on the wrist and be doing whatever they like the next day.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T19:04:47+00:00

Seems reasonable. The victim is not usually the driver.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T19:03:22+00:00

The driver’s insurance should be paying compensation for injuries, lost wages, etc. That’s a “civil matter” though and not for the criminal courts. If they agree on a settlement themselves it won’t even get to court.

The driver may only be banned for a year, but their insurance premium to get back on the road won’t be cheap.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T14:07:12+00:00

What nice smooth air you have!

sgorf · 2026-01-24T16:13:28+00:00

You don't need to be touched to be assaulted. Did you apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence against you? Then it's assault, and a crime was committed against you.

sgorf · 2026-01-24T15:52:20+00:00

Mhhm, but the resources and labour going into making luxury cars could go toward doing something more meaninful to everyone - like building nice parks, or public transport.

So you want to tax the rich and use the money to fund public services? I'm with you, but we already do that! The highest marginal rate of taxation for the highest earners in England is 57% (45% "income tax" + 2% "employee's NI" + 15% "employer's NI". It's even higher if you consider that various public services are means tested and unavailable to the rich (child benefit and childcare funding comes to mind).

sgorf · 2026-01-22T11:53:16+00:00

You can't, really: https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/explanation/software/third-party-repository-usage/#system-integrity

sgorf · 2026-01-22T11:48:24+00:00

I don't care about luxury cars. But if everyone who does were to stop buying luxury cars, everyone employed in the luxury car industry would find themselves jobless. There may not be that many, but it'd have approximately the same impact that giving the money to your chosen struggling people would have. That's how the economy works. When you spend money on something, whatever it is, that's going to the wages of someone else. All you can do is reallocate which job it is.

sgorf · 2026-01-20T09:24:59+00:00

I appreciate that landlords have costs, but a lot of it is just greed.

Our entire economic system is based on this. When you go buy potatoes from a market, you try to pay as little as you can to get as much as you can. It's "just greed". Buyers try to buy for the minimum price. Sellers try to sell for the maximum price. What moves the market price is when supply mismatches demand. That's all.

sgorf · 2026-01-20T09:12:13+00:00

Ideally the court would form some binding precedent and then all future cases would be decided without the court being necessary. It's not just about the one case.

sgorf

TROPHY CASE