Europe
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
view the rest of the comments
No, these rights work perfectly well with age verification systems in general. It's the planned implementation that is bullshit. And that's not a coincidence but intentional to -again- sell us surveilance through the back door.
(For reference: No one but the EU and member's governments are more qualified to produce an actual, working age verification system in the form of "Yes, that person has the required age. No, you don't need to know any other personal information because we already checked and certified it". Because they already have the data base neccessary. But you can't outsource such a system to private companies that actually want to get paid mainly in aquired data...)
The point of an age verification system is to make sure that certain classes of people cannot access certain categories of information.
Is there really no problem there?
In case of minors and pornography, most societies have come to the conclusion that there is no problem with that.
If some people want to fight this, they should fight this issue (this would be very much a losing battle in all places in my opinion), not age verification systems, because the second would not exist without laws like the first one.
There is no way to remotely verify someone's age across the Internet without violating their privacy. If there was, there would be no way to use it that doesn't violate their other rights.
It security engineer here: zero knowledge proofs are exactly that. Proof your age isg higher than X, but not even how much higher. They can't even profile you based on that information as they can't recognize you across visits.
Some government identity cards already support that. For everybody else there are companies that offer that service.
BTW I'm against age verification. We had access to porn at a certain age, I want my children to be able to look when that gets interesting to them. But then again I'm pretty progressive and open with sexuality in general and I take time out of my day to actually talk to my kids about dangers on the internet.
If I search for zero-knowledge proofs relating to age verification the only thing I see is the hash chain method "based on a 2013 paper by Angel & Walfish" which is clever enough but does not in itself solve the problem of proving age while maintaining one's privacy. It allows Alice to demonstrate to a verifier that she is over the age of 65 while revealing nothing else other than her name or some other identifying piece of information. Avoiding the reveal of any such information is what we would want to avoid.
Is there some better way to do it?
You only need to prove the number in your government id is greater that the required. Number. The number is signed by the government CA
Any reasonable government doesnt gove out ascending number-IDs, Right??!
Your government... you know... the people that already have all your data and issue your passport... cannot include a flag (properly cryptographically signed by them) that tells a service "Yes, the guy that just inserted this valid passport is an adult. You don't need to get any other info. We already checked for you.", no other connection or transfer of data neccessary?
If you know a way to do it without invading people's privacy you'd better go tell the government of Spain about it, because they didn't manage to find it when they designed their eIDAS scheme which they hoped would become the Europe-wide standard. Not sure if that's still seen as likely but I haven't heard about any other concrete proposals yet.
I'm talking about things you can do technically.
Governments don't plan completely idiotic ideas because they don't know better but because their actual reason for choosing the system they chose is NOT creating a workable system that protects your privacy.
That's the whole point. Articles like this aren't completely wrong. The systems planned are indeed a risk to privacy rights. But we need to stop pretending that it's an accident and the government simply don't know better or there is no better solution at all. Actual solutions exist and we need to talk about the fact that those are ignored intentionally because a working system that protects your privacy is simply not the goal here.
What do you mean by violating privacy?
If you have a passport, citizenship, or birth certificate your age is already documented.
yes, however the government should NEVER have access to what social messaging apps ANYONE uses without a warrant.
Isn't that a matter of implementation whether they even receive this information or not during validation?
the fact that they received a validation request is informative that they probably shouldn't be able to access, however regardless of implementation, assuming causality and the speed of light remain, this will be information the government will recieve. Some entity (probably the government) would* also need to know who to send the response to, technically they could just broadcast this over some low frequency transmission broadcast to everyone, but realistically the government would need some kind of address (IP, fax number, po box, etc.).
Technically this is an implementation detail, however the only ways to implement this type of thing that wouldn't be comprimizing would involve citizen prompted government broadcasts and trust that the government won't have records of who requested the broadcast and what number was sent (which would make it trivial for adults to just sell the age identifier) and would still worsen the average citizen's security because it still takes effort to generate a unique identifier for every site.
If my gov creates a digital cert of age and signs it then I should be able to use that and the service provider can verify against gov public key, no? No information of visit exchanged.
As an alternative I also expect it to be possible via zero knowledge proof https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
that still uniquely identifies you to the company and would make having multiple accounts that are fully separate harder. in addition there would be no way of knowing whether or not the government has or hasn't hidden another layer of data (like your name) in the certificate.
This would also be trivial for children to bypass as it would need to be usable an unlimited number of times (or else individuals couldn't have multiple accounts) therefore it would only take one adult sharing their cert and signature publicly for any child to have a valid certificate.
Just imagine that every time you watch cat videos, the cat video website sends a request to your government's servers to verify your age.
Of course, this can also be done without accessing any database. E. g. the German electronic identity card supports verifying your age without revealing any other personal information.
Just imagine your passport just has a separate set of information saved "This person is legally an adult" signed of by the government issueing them. No transfer of any other data neccessary. You don't need to know their name, their age or anything else. And you don't need some database to be queried. You just get the certified "I have the proper age to access this"-card build into their regular papers.
Yeah it's really not that simple. If you give someone a unique signed token that just says "whoever has this is over the age of 35" then that token becomes your unique id number that every website you share it with can use to track you. If you create a whole bunch of temporarily valid tokens for old-enough citizens any time they want some, so far you have no way top stop those getting into the hands of teenagers who want to use them to sneak into feddit.
Which is the reason I talked about the passport. It doesn't have to be unique, just a flag cryptographically signed by the issueing government.
Yes, I can still give away my passport then so that someone can get into adult stuff on the internet... or I can open it for them. So that's not exactly the use case I'm that actually about.
But that's all missing the point. There is simply no interest in developing a proper system. Just like terrorism, or child-pornography, age verification is just another pretense to establish surveilance, weaken privacy rights and monetize us by outsourcing everything to private companies (purely concidently usually connected to AI and very interested in all data they can get theri greedy little hands on). We can discuss the technical issues for years, but the people actually planning that stuff won't care because that's not the actual agenda.
Uh... if "it doesn't have to be unique" then you may as well just have a password โ everyone who knows that the password is "swordfish" is allowed into the adults-only club. There are things stopping people selling their actual paper-based passports en masse or just making photocopies. If you have an easily-replaceable digital token with no biometric info and it's not tied to your identity in any way, there are no such constraints.
I was obviously not talking about random paper-based passports but the one ID that is already standard and required for every citizen. And that one -if you decide to give it away- is tied to you, has your identity and is not easily replaced. But requiring to submit all that information on a low level internet verification process is unneccessary, when just "yes, I have that card proving I have the proper age!" is perfectly functional for that purpose.
There is no one-size-fits all solution for security. But for basic stuff like acccess to online stuff an anonymous solution based on your ID is perfectly workable. Nobody is preventing additional biometric checks for more important stuff, it's the general things in day-to-day life we need to primarily protect from data kraken trying to profile us to make money.
I'm still curious as to what it is that you have in mind. "Yes I have that card" will be communicated to random web services by the user presenting to them some kind of signed digital token I imagine, as is usual, and that token itself, or the user-held secret used in generating it, is what can then be sold, transferred, or used to track the user unless you have some way to prevent that. If you've given any hint of how you think it can be done, I didn't get it.
One thing people sometimes think of is having the user be authenticated with a government (or other authority) server in real time whenever they want to prove their age to some stranger โ but the system I saw which worked like that was obviously a pretty big violation of privacy so I assumed it wasn't the sort of thing you meant. If that's the idea, how would you prevent the central authority from keeping a record of when and where your "passport" was used?
We seem to talk about vastly different things or from complete different technical perspectives here, so I will take a few steps back and simplify it:
I, the government, issue your ID (with all the usual stuff making if forgery-proof). On the front is all your personal info, on the back a big marker that you are a legal adult.
If you want to buy something age-limited you just show the backside of your ID. I as the government have all your data but don't know where you use your ID, the guy checking your ID has no data because he can trust me that I checked your age and provided a forgery-proof ID personally for you.
That's it. That's the whole (simplified) process. And you can reacreate exactly this concept digitally with basic cryptographic methods for online use.
So were is the problem with such a model? (Yes, I know that this is NOT what they are planning. But that's the whole point. It is possible, the governments are just not interested because they actually don't want to protect oyur privacy and outsourcing other methods to private companies -that do it cheaply because they want your data- is more profitable.)
The main reason we can show our physical government-issued ID card to someone in a shop in relative safety is that it's a human looking at it with their eyes, which do not have the ability to record and permanently store in machine-readable form all the information on it (such as a photo) that would identify their customer. (Of course when they hook up face recognition systems to their surveillance cameras we have other privacy problems, but that's another story.)
The same thing cannot so easily be done across the Internet. Something like it may be possible in theory, with some caveats, although it's hard to tell for sure until we see an actual design document for such a system that is complete to the point where we could examine the details and see if it might really work in practice. Nobody seems to have got that far as of yet. All the actual proposals that I've seen sacrifice privacy for convenience of implementation because doing otherwise would be very complicated and difficult.