There is a disclaimer though, which kind of brings hope:

This is an initial version of the software, developed solely for the purpose of demonstrating the business flow of the solution. It is not intended for production use, and does not yet include the full set of functional, security, or integration features required for a live deployment.

This makes me to thinkgof this solition as of a risk for now (high one, though, with modern approach of shipping PoCs)

Honestly I'm starting to understand hermits. I have to accept that I've become a digital hermit.

Whats better than enshittification? Government powered enshittification!

Fuck the play integrity API, Play Store and Google play services

If the EU is going to make software then I think they'd have to consider themselves a gatekeeper requiring people to make a third party authentication app using their API.

Time to start a new Europe citizen petition!

so yet another american company could cripple entire eu very easily?

That sounds illegal

Guess I live somewhere in Asia according to my VPN from now on. Fuck this shit.

cause nobody ever bypassed play integrity

Ban age verification. It's an accessibility and privacy nightmare, besides the free speech implications.

Government mandated enshitification, yay

So, let me summarize this, maybe i miss something:

a) This is a Module/Reference Implementation not the finished app b) It is in the earliest stages of development c) it is opensource, someone could provide alternate means for device/app verification via MR d) There is no mention about "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE WILL DO IT", that part is a straight out lie!

Nothing prevents nations to implement other verification methods the googles API.

So, what are we raging about here? People insulting developers for doing their work? People using an issue tracker like twitter? People, that do not read properly?

Yes, the italian implementation already is tied to google, and there should be some push back, but that is NOT the fault of this project.

There is no app. Read the readme from the beginning. Even cited it here. Show me the he app in the app stores! YOU CAN'T!

THIS IS A REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION NOT AN PRODUCTION READY APP! THIS IS EXPLICITLY STATE ON THE PROJECT README!

V.P.N.

The EU governing bodies are speaking out of both sides of their mouths if they claim that they want data sovereignty while simultaneously relying on an evil, American company to verify your "integrity" 🤡

You'll never be sovereign if you rely on a for-profit entity that makes money by spying on people and selling your data.

In digital age it should be understood as a personal liberty to not be compelled by state to use nonfree software in any shape or form. Just like court rulings must be public and legislation too (sadly this doesn't apply in EU).

What in the fuckety anti-anti-trust megacorp win is this???

Where is the petition to sign??

The main problem isn't the Google Play integration, but that this requires an Android or iOS device at all. This should be based on something like flutter or electron, and be easily portable with an agnostic build script for e.g. Linux, UBports, postmarketOS, and so on, as well. If only for the reason that most Android and iOS devices will effectively become unpatchable after the mandatory 5-ish years run out, while a standardized UEFI desktop platform will not. There are so many reasons not to have a "standard" smartphone nowadays. Also see here.

Is there anyone more familiar with this age verification process that can explain if and what data does this share with some UE body or government? Is the the system 100% client-side or is there any API or tie to other govt service that may be able to track when and where (website) you're trying to verify your age? Thanks.

Here is the source that they want to make e.g. Youtube, Netflix, ... rely on this new app: https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2368265/online-services-get-up-to-12-months-to-apply-age-verification-eu-guidelines-say

I agree with most concerns here but as a professional prototypist... people do not seem to understand here and on related issues what "reference implementation" means.

This is NOT supposed to be used! By anybody! This is basically a technical demonstration that shows how it can be done at all.

Think of this as a test suite rather than software proper.

Again, this does not mean it's OK to even suggest that Google and Apple are in any way acceptable bottleneck. I do believe those are terrible choices. I do also believe relying on them just to do a proof of concept or technical demonstration is quite "lazy" but I also bet that this was necessary due to the scope of the project, e.g. "deliver us an app that works in 6 months on an average mobile phone". I really don't think they had discussion on accessibility, inclusion, etc.

So... yes, do keep track and be concerned but also don't conflate a proof of concept with a maintained app that will be required to be used on all EU citizen mobile phones next year.

This verification efforts were kicked off earlier this month; this app hasn't really launched yet, has it? I think proper implementation after a test phase will maybe come next year. I think it is too early to complain that aftermarket OS's are being excluded. It seems to me that nobody has tackled that problem yet rather than this being a willful exclusion. And while the EU lawmakers thought it was okay to put the Googles of the world in a position where they get to be judge, jury, and executioner for the right to be forgotten, I have a feeling that GDPR and the general vibe within the EU will not allow this to only work with the help of one American corporation on the continent's most used OS. We need to be watchful but not despairing just yet.

Graphene OS can give apps access to the Google Play Integrity API.

It'd better to check whether the bootloader is unlocked. If banks can do it, then this app can also do it.

Maybe you shouldn’t provably tie your identity to a privacy phone?