What does that even mean? I don’t think anyone is proposing mandatory, internet-wide age verification. It’s ‘content based’. Some content is hidden behind age checks. It doesn’t make sense to prove you’re NOT 18. Either you prove you’re 18/16/21 and get access of you don’t prove it and you don’t get access. At the same time requiring every website to provide ‘non-adult’ version also doesn’t make sense (like pornhub would have to offer child safe version?). Same with social media bans - everyone below 16 is banned. What would “voluntary” check look like here?
equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet
So it comes down to some alternative implementation of https://ageverification.dev/? It’s an open standard. Doesn’t it allow for implementations not based on digital wallets? I think that if that’s the demand then it would be better to specify it clearly instead of mixing it with demands that the current legislation and implementation already provide.
What does that even mean? I don’t think anyone is proposing mandatory, internet-wide age verification.
Right now, the proposed age verification law would be very much mandatory, i.e., companies would be legally required to implement age verification or face fines/other penalties.
I can’t speak for the initiative’s organizers, but to me ‘voluntary’ means companies would be free to choose whether or not to implement age verification for their services.
The current problem is it relies completely on Google and Apple device attestation, which means it’ll be unavailable on rooted, uncertified by Google, and/or not running Google services devices. One of the developers confirmed on Github that this is the intended implementation and will most likely not be changed (and got down voted into oblivion).
These initiatives aren’t meant to provide any clear and direct solutions to any problems. Their goal is to let the EU know that there are issues Europeans are worried about, and then the Comission, Council, and Parliament will talk about any available solutions, if they deem it appropriate. Which they are absolutely not required to, unfortunately.
The current problem is it relies completely on Google and Apple device attestation, which means it’ll be unavailable on rooted, uncertified by Google, and/or not running Google services devices. One of the developers confirmed on Github that this is the intended implementation and will most likely not be changed (and got down voted into oblivion).
That’s a valid point. I wish the petition stated it this clearly. The way it’s written right now no politician will understand this is what’s being requested.
What does that even mean? I don’t think anyone is proposing mandatory, internet-wide age verification. It’s ‘content based’. Some content is hidden behind age checks. It doesn’t make sense to prove you’re NOT 18. Either you prove you’re 18/16/21 and get access of you don’t prove it and you don’t get access. At the same time requiring every website to provide ‘non-adult’ version also doesn’t make sense (like pornhub would have to offer child safe version?). Same with social media bans - everyone below 16 is banned. What would “voluntary” check look like here?
So it comes down to some alternative implementation of https://ageverification.dev/? It’s an open standard. Doesn’t it allow for implementations not based on digital wallets? I think that if that’s the demand then it would be better to specify it clearly instead of mixing it with demands that the current legislation and implementation already provide.
Right now, the proposed age verification law would be very much mandatory, i.e., companies would be legally required to implement age verification or face fines/other penalties.
I can’t speak for the initiative’s organizers, but to me ‘voluntary’ means companies would be free to choose whether or not to implement age verification for their services.
The current problem is it relies completely on Google and Apple device attestation, which means it’ll be unavailable on rooted, uncertified by Google, and/or not running Google services devices. One of the developers confirmed on Github that this is the intended implementation and will most likely not be changed (and got down voted into oblivion).
These initiatives aren’t meant to provide any clear and direct solutions to any problems. Their goal is to let the EU know that there are issues Europeans are worried about, and then the Comission, Council, and Parliament will talk about any available solutions, if they deem it appropriate. Which they are absolutely not required to, unfortunately.
That’s a valid point. I wish the petition stated it this clearly. The way it’s written right now no politician will understand this is what’s being requested.