Full title: EU’s new social media child protection rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID - Leaked documents suggest that some existing accounts will also be subject to identification checks

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Many half-assed ideas will never make a full-assed idea.

Between this and Wsocial, it is pretty clear that whoever is making IT decisions needs to be let go.

This is not Doctorow's enshittification; this is an attempt at domesticating users into thinking it is a normal thing to upload your ID to random cloud servers or hand over your biometric data to use WhatsApp??? This isn't protecting children. It is giving the social media giants permission to allow ads for things like gambling and line their pockets. If I worked in advertising, I'd be pretty happy.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You not uploading to cloud, you validate your docs locally

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    If anything truly local and zero knowledge was allowed, there would be someone sharing their access eu-wide and everyone could install that and be done with it. One person authenticating millions.

    Just due to that every system proposed has at minimum a central authority that does rate limiting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    And the anonymous internet gets another nail in the coffin. Endgame is every comment identifiable and legally (unlike state intelligence agencies) actionable against you, and the chilling effect that will have on free speech, communication, and organization.

    Hail the rise of techno fascism, the entire internet will be facebook.

    Can they not palm it off on the corpos to do for them? The states already have the identification apparatus, they should step up and provide age verification services. Meta and Steam do not need my photo ID, just that I'm over 18. If we can't have freedom, at least minimize the harm.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Do the EU citizens want this? Where's the democracy?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The democracy is in the process. Stuff like this gets introduced all the time by some politicians and pushed by some lobby groups, with counter-arguments from other lobby groups, and then gets rejected by other politicians and/or by the courts.

    It's how a functioning democracy is supposed to work.

    If you're an EU citizen and worried about this there are many ways to contact EU representatives and also to track what your EU MEPs are up to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    This kind of empty sentences do not make EU a democracy. "The democracy is in the process" – no, the process shows that there's no democracy. "It’s how a functioning democracy is supposed to work" – no it isn't. A democracy establishes a referendum for such invasive measures.

    We aren't speaking about empty technical definitions here. Also China is a "republic of the people" then – it's even in its name.

    This kind of empty legalese, this Newspeak, does not help anyone. Call slavery 'freedom' and then tell the slaves "you're free! you see? This is how functioning freedom is supposed to work. It's in the process".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    But there's no absolute truth so the best you can do is try to come to compromises and offer processes to arrive at them fairly. All democracies out there have differences in a lot of factors. You can place some safeguards so the idiots or the evil people can't take over easily but eventually if enough people want something (even if misguided) it's gonna happen.

    Call slavery 'freedom' and then tell the slaves "you're free!

    Be fair now. I'm not talking about outright twisting of words. I'm talking about concrete processes for considering competing points of view before making something into a law.

    And you need to strike a balance because if you make such processes very rigid and inaccessible then you may not be subject to new bad ideas but you also won't be able to shift to new good ideas. Speaking of slavery, it was once upon a time habitual in many societies, but it was the ability to shift our points of view that changed that. Same goes for a lot of other antiquated ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Stupid idea

  • source
  • 42 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 113 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Can they just stop pretending these laws are not about eroding privacy and be honest for ounce.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • even taking the pretense at face value, this would just be adults damning kids who are queer, autistic and/or in abusive households/communities (among others) and patting themselves on the back

    always scrambling to "protect" kids without ever considering their needs or why they engage in the behavior they do at all

    (assuming they're not just seen as defective goods to be either "corrected" or disposed of, of course)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 1 month ago*

    EU’s new social media child protection state surveillance rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID

    FTFY

  • source
  • [–] 108 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Eliminating online privacy has always been framed as "protecting children" and it's always been 100% about surveillance

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Even if it's secure (no software is ever 100% secure), it can't be anonymous. How could they verify your ID? Maybe they theoretically don't store the record, and the checks after the first don't provide it, it can't be anonymous or it's worthless for ID verification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    That's the cool part, they found a way to keep it anonymous and still be ID verification, it's called a white card, a simple yes or no if you're 18+, it's like you get a simple white card from a verified institution like a bank saying you're 18+ with no other information like... How is that not anonymous?
    Search for zero-knowledge proof, and the techniques behind it
    Whatsapp is less safe than this
    Sources for ZKP: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/docs/annexes/annex-B/annex-B-zkp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm Vulnerabilities: https://www.encryptionconsulting.com/education-center/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If I'm understanding it correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am, it requires a witness, like I said. That witness has to be trusted to not reveal any information. The receiver doesn't get any information theoretically, but it requires that someone check your ID. That's pretty obvious though because how else could it work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 1 month ago

    Well if everyone's identity is stolen then I guess your identity will mean nothing.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 month ago

    This will just push the actual criminals further underground, while everyone else gets spied on. lose-lose.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Ironically, kids might still get around the new restriction by using a virtual private network (VPN) connection, which virtually positions the computer in another country, at the time of signing up.

    This is just going to be one long pointless game of whackamole and as effective as Prohibition was in the US.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    The US claim they are going after the VPN companies now too. Of course it could be all lies and deflection like most things they say now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That’s nonsense, VPN is tool needed to run companies. Even if they make VPNs business only, people will just register fake businesses

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There is no such thing as "fake business". The point is that the government identifies you when you want to use a VPN, so it's either gonna be through your personal ID or through a business where you also register with the government and then they obviously also know your identity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    By fake I mean business which officially registered but effectively does nothing, files 0 profit tax forms and pays just enough fees to keep it formally open. It doesn’t hide your identity from government but it does allow you to access content via countries where there is no age verification thus companies don’t get your id

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    It’s not just about business use, but citizen access to content. I looked it up and this is the stage it’s at now https://gizmodo.com/the-first-us-law-targeting-vpn-use-takes-effect-september-3-heres-what-happen-2000805001

    The new law is narrow. VPN companies say they can’t do it. Fines for businesses that don’t are real. It’s all a little strange.

    Very few people will set up their own business or technical venture, though. That’s enough to have a chilling effect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    How else is Mrs. von der Leyen supposed to sue people that speak badly about EU politicians?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If she wasn't corrupt and incompetent people wouldn't say that about her, so maybe she should improve her bad reputation or step down as incompetent supreme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    You're talking about someone that had her floor in the EU building fortified, only allowing access for a few selected people. Does that look like she intends to improve her reputation to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    That stuff would 100% get leaked and ruin many lives. Hell it would ruin lives even if only authorized authorities have access to it because some perverted cops or politicians will abuse it to stalk women and children. They‘re already doing it but getting a live feed of someone’s online activity by typing in a single number makes it so much more convenient for bad actors. And it would also get leaked on top of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Leak what? Nobody at any point stores any documents and you would know that if any of you read the OPEN SOURCE framework the EU developed.

    https://ageverification.dev/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's not about storing documents but about privacy. Do you want police officer in front your doors that checks identity of people that come to your house to talk with you ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    How does the police officer know its you and where you live lmao? that's not how it works... the state ID produces a yes or no if you're older than 18 which can't be tracked, a yes or no has no information about the user... So a police officer can never know it was you lol what. Research zero-knowledge proof and the techniques behind it
    Sources for ZKP: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/docs/annexes/annex-B/annex-B-zkp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm Vulnerabilities: https://www.encryptionconsulting.com/education-center/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Ok so imagine you have tablet on your door and anyone that can enter have valid signature stored but not on tablet but on police servers. Now guests are entering signatures on your tablet, that signature is then sent to the police server that accepts them or not and opens the doors as they wish.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    Great, this might actually kill centralized social media in a long run. Future generations will grow up on decentralized web because it will be the only one they can access.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago
    [–] 27 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Ursula von der Leyen, making the internet progressively worse year by year. Cookie banners, GDPR consent dialogs, and now ID verification. Please just retire and take up a different hobby, like knitting.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Neither Cookie banners nor GDPR consent dialogs need to be bad. They are only bad because companies try to do their shit. It's companies not regulation that make Cookie banners and GDPR consent dialogs bad.

    That said, the id-verification stuff is just pure awful for privacy concerns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Honestly? State ID is better than the current solution which is giving Thiel-affiliated companies photo and other data.

    Ideally I'd rather have a governments provided digital ID that's more secure and just gives the company limited metadata instead of full ID info provided from gov't to company. Put in rules requiring warrants or subpoenas for lookups.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Who do you think is checking those ids? Hint: it's not the government, it's some 3rd party company, always.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago*

    With cryptographic systems like the EU uses, it must go through the government because a 3rd party can't implement that verification/response pattern without access to the proper gov't cryptographic secrets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    People are morons. Here we have an open source and anonymous framework for age-verifcation (free for anyone to read and check the source code: https://ageverification.dev/) developed by a people's institution and people lump it into the same boat as some private USA company photocopying your ID.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago

    EU being shitty as always.

  • source