You’re right. All PI data should be tokenised to ensure a proper abstraction between the user and their identity. And then a tool a bit like Flatseal to allow granular access to that data.

Yes! That’s how compliance works. Otherwise it would be like “Excuse me for speeding officer. I’m going to adhere to the speed limit tomorrow. I promise!” Anyway, what’s your point ?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, yes. And I agree this could become a slippery slope towards enabling something we, as privacy concerned citizens, despise. It could also turn into enabling Linux as a solution for governments that require this. So from my PoV the question is whether it’s better that Linux will be prohibited for noncompliance or that SystemD enables a persistence layer for DoB to be used for yet to be clarified mechanisms? So far SystemD has been exceedingly good at designing this init system but maybe this is the exception and a wrong turn. I’m still curious to learn more arguments for exactly why they chose as they did.

How do you see this depriving anybody of freedom? It’s an optional field. There’s no logic connected to it. Even if you were to put your date of birth into that optional field how do you see this technically connects with external consumers let alone for regulatory purposes?

Anti-corruption and anti-money laundering is way more effective when there’s no “blackspots”. Makes it so much better when you want to follow the money. As a very privacy concerned individual I, I assume that the reason for insisting on this data be given is to fight back on corruption and money laundering. At least this Is what the bank tells me when I challenge them on this. Maybe I’m just naive sitting here in comfortable Scandinavia