EU Age Verification Solution
Posted by t0bia_s 2 days ago
Comments
Comment by jampekka 1 day ago
The honest slogan is "Age Verification Solution for Europeans Who Use Mobile Devices that are Controlled by US Corporations and by Extension US Government Which Can Revoke Your Use of the Solution with No Recourse".
Comment by econ 1 day ago
I also find the de-banking mechanism fascinating. Bunch of anons decide privately if you are fkd for whatever reason they want (if any)
[1] - https://wero-wallet.eu
Comment by nilslindemann 1 day ago
Comment by pjmlp 1 day ago
EDIT: A possible way, https://european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en
Comment by techcode 1 day ago
The non-EU Serbia has the equivalent app, but also you might be able to get individual/personal e-certificate (for logging into e-government or signing e-documents) added into smart card chip of your ID. But in practice it seems thats only used for business purposes, like CEO/Accountants/etc to sign/submit business records/taxes.
Comment by tmtvl 1 day ago
It's one of the only things that Belgium does right.
Comment by closuregarden 1 day ago
Comment by mcv 1 day ago
Comment by exceptione 1 day ago
Comment by techcode 1 day ago
And on top of that you add stuff like sim cloning, and all the other things that one gets by having a direct SS7 connection (there were blog posts/YouTube videos - IIRC Linus Tech Tips calls/SMS got routed to Australia).
Using SMS for 2FA or anything similar is my last resort.
Granted I stopped working there 15+ years ago - but I imagine that the basic economy reasoning where it's impractical for every mobile operator to have a direct peering contract with every other operator in the world - is still the same.
And messages originating from non mobile users/operators (like DigiD 2FA) always start at one of these messaging gateways/SMSCs (e.g. InfoBip.com), and often go through a few different ones before reaching your mobile operator.
Comment by Someone 1 day ago
Yes, in https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d..., section 2.3 User Journey says
“To enable online age verification, the User is required to install an AV app on their mobile device”
but section 3 Architecture says
“The solution relies on a device-based proof of age model, leveraging widely available mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets to store age attestations. This approach supports the goal of rapid deployment and broad accessibility. Alternative mechanisms for storing and presenting proof of age may be considered for future versions of the solution.”
and
“It is also recognised that devices may be shared among multiple users, for example, when a child has access to a parent’s mobile phone”
That indicates the child may not need to have a smartphone.
I think the vast majority of cases where this will be used it with users wanting to run smartphone or tablet apps, though. For those cases, requiring the user to own a smartphone isn’t problematic.
Comment by jampekka 1 day ago
There's been extensive discussion about this, but the developers refuse to even fully acknowledge the problem.
Comment by Someone 1 day ago
And yes, it remains to be seen whether, as they say “alternative mechanisms for storing and presenting proof of age” that “may be considered for future versions of the solution” actually will actually surface, but their argument “The solution relies on a device-based proof of age model, leveraging widely available mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets to store age attestations. This approach supports the goal of rapid deployment and broad accessibility.” has merit.
Comment by jampekka 1 day ago
Comment by budududuroiu 1 day ago
Comment by raxxorraxor 1 day ago
There were good ideas at first but especially data protection features have already been scrapped. Also you need to buy into the Apple or Google ecosystem, no alternatives allowed. Especially funny if the next sentence contains some reference about independence...
I will not use it for anything privately as I neither trust the issuer, nor the notified bodies providing the infrastructure.
Our police accessed app data from Corona movement apps, it will do the same for any and all digital solutions the bureaucracy tries to sell. This is political problem we had for decades. Authorities aren't trustworthy, the legislative refuses to introduce strong privacy protection and instead tries to do the opposite. They even further enabled large platforms to scrap user data even more unhinged. To hell with them and with their shitty projects, I don't need a shitty content gatekeeper, even if you pay me.
Comment by squigz 1 day ago
Can you elaborate on... why?
Comment by t0bia_s 1 day ago
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act)
ePrivacy Directive (Cookie Law)
Digital Services Act (DSA)
Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)
REACH Regulation (chemicals control)
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)
Nature Restoration Law
Renewable Energy Directive (RED III)
Working Time Directive
Posted Workers Directive
Roaming Regulation (price caps for telecoms)
VAT Directive (harmonized VAT rules)
State Aid Rules
Schengen Border Code (migration/border controls)
Eco-design and product standardization rules
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
EU Taxonomy Regulation
Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation
Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse
It dictate sustainability, but instead create unsustainable behemot that costs tax payers more than it brings. It hampers competitiveness, remove freedoms from citizens and holding back the economy. One of the original ideas of building EU was to bring common market. Not any more.Basically EU holds power through funding projects by grants, which fundamentally breaks free market and there is no transparency in it (ie. Pfizer contracts, proponents of Chat Control, etc.).
Comment by snowpid 1 day ago
Comment by t0bia_s 1 day ago
That's why DSA doesn't work. Small and medium-sized enterprises comply and delete unnecessary content because they face crippling fines, while big ones just pay fines made from harmful content. Over and over.
Comment by snowpid 1 day ago
Btw, the Very Large ones regulated under DSA are either neutral or negative seen.
Comment by subscribed 1 day ago
LOL.
Comment by xinayder 1 day ago
Comment by DavideNL 1 day ago
Comment by tiel88 1 day ago
The EAVS will be dropping yeah?