🇪🇺 European Citizen's Initiative against ID age verification online

[helloyanis@furries.club]

@fothsid Yeah sadly that's how the system works. But at least you can share it to people you know who might be EU citizens! Just like I'm doing with this post!

[frisk@woof.tech]

@illi I do not know who is "they" in your message, but "unlinkability" is a design idea behind Zero Knowledge prrofs. A website communicates with an application, which communicates with government (actual implementation might differ) to ask for cryptographic proof of your trait (such as age).

Government verifies, sends back data to the application which then forwards only signed information about your trait to the website.

The devil is in the details however, as EDRI's Policy Advisor explains (https://youtu.be/euSkCvhzweQ?t=4964). Anonymity is not guaranteed by the European Wallet solution.

This is not to say ZKP's are not a huge improvement in terms of privacy compared to what is being asked from residents of USA or Australia. They are.

I still argue in this discussion however, that even if well designed privacy solution existed, we cannot compromise on it, as the drawbacks of this entire idea are harmful to culture, safety and freedom of all (including children), and this is the real issue with Age Verification laws around the world.

[hneerqe@lemmy.world]

Sadly, I want to sign a “No verification whatsoever, fuck off with your shit, you don’t fool me” not a “p-p-p-please atleast pretend to make it less distopian”

[ohmrun@indieweb.social]

@helloyanis @StopKillingGames @EUCommission @privacy

Looks like if you're a resident in Europe, but not naturalised, you're shit out of luck.

[marjolica@social.linux.pizza]

@ohmrun @helloyanis @StopKillingGames @EUCommission @privacy also worth mentioning that the EU, whose Commission is the intended recipient of this petition, is only a subset of European countries.

[nyovaya@transfem.social]

@imbl@social.treehouse.systems @helloyanis@furries.club @StopKillingGames@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu They just want it a method without sending a copy of your ID to the service lol

[nyovaya@transfem.social]

@helloyanis@furries.club @Frisk@woof.tech Sounds like the reformist approach of "eating dirt is better than eating shit"

[star@fed.amazonawaws.com]

@nyovaya @helloyanis @Frisk A sovereign torment nexus

[leelatorres@ieji.de]

@helloyanis
#FreiheitStattAngst

[helloyanis@furries.club]

@nyovaya @EUCommission @StopKillingGames @imbl Yeah exactly, currently age verification involves sending your ID and scanning your face and sending those to company servers.

If we can get this to be gone it's already a step in the right direction in my opinion.

[nyovaya@transfem.social]

@helloyanis@furries.club @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @StopKillingGames@mastodon.social @imbl@social.treehouse.systems Theres not a lot of services currently doing that (in the EU) from what Im aware of. Maybe we should stand up against age verification completely.

[helloyanis@furries.club]

@nyovaya @EUCommission @StopKillingGames @imbl True, I'm also against it but between the unregulated minefield that is the case now and an open source solution I would prefer that one.

And if it's open source I think anyone can make a fork to just bypass it too, so that can be cool too.

Just, going from "Social media bans and ID age verification everywhere" to "No age verification anywhere" is probably not gonna pass at the eu commission.

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis
That's literally not what the initiative is about.

The title appears promising, and baits absentminded signatures: "No Digital ID & No Age Verification"

But then the text says: "The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age"

So do we ban, or do we require? And how is "pseudonymous" any different from an ID?

(1/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis
It supposedly wants that "digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory."

All of these are empty virtue signals. "Voluntary" - yes, you can just lose access to the services and accept it. "Privacy-preserving" - every implementation already calls itself that, and politicians agree. "Non-discriminatory" - well! I need more characters for this one.

(2/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis
Do we really think that the institutions and companies rolling out these policies that disproportionately target LGBTQ+ and furry communities, systematically reducing our visibility, ability to organise, receive money, and sometimes even just to talk to each other, are going to interpret this the same way we do?

And even *if* - then what of it, once a more right wing govt comes in and declares mentions of LGBTQ+ topics strictly adult-only?

(3/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis
"Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law."

We're not the ones defining what counts as "lawful", "strictly necessary", "proportionate", or "provided by law".

Furry art could be made illegal. Every grifter is screaming about the absolute irrevocable necessity to "protect children". Laws are being passed that require IDs for everything.

(4/?)

cc @karb @StopKillingGames

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis
Like, is this a psyop? Who exactly at @StopKillingGames is behind this?

Using our signatures to whitewash the age/id verification agenda is completely unacceptable. As presented, this initiative basically rubberstamps whatever "cool" age/id checks gets introduced by those seeking to centralise control over the internet, to police what & whom we're allowed to see, to profile "undesirables", and to harm children by denying them access to life-saving support.

(5/5)

cc @karb

[lionsphil@plush.city]

@Frisk @helloyanis the standard playbook on this one---because the UK was doing it 20 years ago with mandatory school web filtering, which on the surface sounds like an "of course you should do that, who could possibly object"---is also to declare *any mention* of homosexuality (or anything but cisgender) to be "adult content", so gay or trans kids grow up thinking they're broken and learning to repress it (or don't make it to adulthood at all; either works when your goal is eradication)

[outfrost@mastodon.social]

@helloyanis i should clarify: no hard feelings towards you at all! i'm just trying to be pointed and explicit about all this to spark some serious discourse, because it worries me that this (at the very least misguided) initiative is set up to override the voices of concern and dissent that we really need in the spotlight

[helloyanis@furries.club]

@outfrost So, what I think (but feel free to ask people at SKG if I'm right) is :
- Sending your ID or face to verify your age online would be completely banned
- But age verification itself would not be banned
- The solution for age verification should be open source (so you can see what it does), decentralized (so you or anyone can host it) and receive independent security audits (so you know it's safe). Other companies who claim privacy are not doing that so you just have to take their word for it.
- If countries make stuff like furry art illegal or LGBT+ topics illegal, then that's sadly beyond the scope of this ECI which only focuses on age verification online

It's not a perfect solution but it's already a step in the right direction as opposed to now where private companies use an AI to process your ID and face