Skip to content

EU age verification app to ban any Android system not licensed by Google

Technology
123 69 1.3k
  • What is it with everyone being obsessed with porn censorship suddenly? Why is this a trend?

    At first I thought it's about control and data gathering, but this seems like too much of a genuine attempt at such a system. Why is the government so obsessed with parenting and nannying the citizens?

    It's not about porn. It's about tracking your every move online.

  • Excuse me, censorship is not good in any way. The people should have the power to decide what they want to see, and what they want to say. Not government officials nor private platform owners.

    I was saying the EU has done some great things, not that censorship has good sides

  • violates the GDPR.

    I wouldn't be too sure. Data protection mainly binds private actors. Any data processing demanded by law is legal. You'd really have to know the finer points of the law to judge if this is ok.

    The GDPR also applies to public institutions as far as I'm aware - but most importantly the concern here is Google and data collected by Google. This data collection is in no way necessary to provide the age verification service. Most of it is not even related to it. The state legally cannot force you to agree to some corporations (i.e. Google's) terms, even if we completely ignore the GDPR.

  • The legal precedent for gaining the ability to ban content under the guise of preventing the dissemination of "obscenity" allows the future banning of "obscene" political opinions and "obscene" dissent.

    Once the "obscene" political content is banned, the language will change to "offensive".

    After "offensive" content is banned, then the language will change to "inappropriate".

    After "inappropriate", the language will change to "oppositional".

    If you believe this is a "slippery slope" fallacy, then as a counterpoint, I would refer to the actual history of the term "politically correct":

    In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase politically correct was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct".[5]

    The term political correctness first appeared in Marxist–Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time, it was used to describe strict adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that is, the party line.[24] Later in the United States, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatism in debates between communists and socialists. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

    The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

    — "Uncommon Differences", The Lion and the Unicorn[4]

    You're right but the example you gave seems to illustrate a different effect that's almost opposite — let me explain.

    The phrase "politically correct" is language which meant something very specific, that was then hijacked by the far-right into the culture war where its meaning could be hollowed out/watered down to just mean basically "polite", then used interchangeably in a motte-and-bailey style between the two meanings whenever useful, basically a weaponized fallacy designed to scare and confuse people — and you know that's exactly what it's doing by because no right-winger can define what this boogeyman really means. This has been done before with things like: Critical Race Theory, DEI, cancel culture, woke, cultural Marxism, cultural bolshevism/judeo bolshevism (if you go back far enough), "Great Replacement", "illegals", the list goes on.

  • That applies to play integrity, and a lot of getting that working is juggling various signatures and keys.
    The suggestion above which I replied to was instead about software-managed keys, something handed to the app which it then stores, where the google drm is polled to get that sacred piece of data. Since this is present in the software, it can be plainly read by the user on rooted devices, which hardware-based keys cannot.

    Play integrity is hardware based, but the eu app is software based, merely polling googles hardware based stuff somewhere in the process.

    merely polling googles hardware based stuff

    I understand. In the context of digital sovereignty, even if the linked shitty implementation is discarded (as it should be), every correct implementation will require magic DRM-like chip. This chip will be made by a US or Asian manufacturer, as the EU has no manufacturing.

  • A phone can also be shared. If it happens at scale, it will be flagged pretty quickly. It's not a real problem.

    The only real problem is the very intention of such laws.

    If it happens at scale, it will be flagged pretty quickly.

    How? In a correct implementation, the 3rd parties only receive proof-of-age, no identity. How will re-use and sharing be detected?

  • Which is why Europeans shouldn't be too eager to laugh about the US being a fascist hellhole. It could happen there again if they're not vigilant.

    Dude, I keep telling my possibly AfD voting cousin we're just a few years behind the US if things continue as they do. Our politicians aren't better people, they're just sneakier for now.

  • No one is laughing... We're horrified how the people who have been screaming "freedom" and being obnoxious about how much more free they are than anyone else in the entire universe, seem to love getting enslaved while being obnoxious about how cool it is to be enslaved.

    Europe has its problems. We've had them for generations, and right now they're getting worse. But at least we have a culture of fighting back, something americans don't.

    But at least we have a culture of fighting back, something americans don’t.

    Talk is cheap. Prove it in the coming years. I really hope you're right, because I want SOMEWHERE to not be either a coporate fascist hellholle or a collapsed country in the future..

  • Dude, I keep telling my possibly AfD voting cousin we're just a few years behind the US if things continue as they do. Our politicians aren't better people, they're just sneakier for now.

    The way that the EU has been bending over for Trump is worrying.

  • If it happens at scale, it will be flagged pretty quickly.

    How? In a correct implementation, the 3rd parties only receive proof-of-age, no identity. How will re-use and sharing be detected?

    There are 3 parties:

    1. the user
    2. the age-gated site
    3. the age verification service

    The site (2) sends the request to the user (1), who passes it on to the service (3) where it is signed and returned the same way. The request comes with a nonce and a time stamp, making reuse difficult. An unusual volume of requests from a single user will be detected by the service.

  • What's going on with Europe lately? You all really want GOOGLE of all mega corps in control of your identity?

    You're going the opposite way, it should be your right to install an alternate OS on your phone. If anything they should be banning Google licensed Android.

    We dont want it. VdL is one of the most corrupt people in policits and unfortunately has a lot of influence

  • I was saying the EU has done some great things, not that censorship has good sides

    Ah, my apologies. It was unclear

  • This post did not contain any content.

    How long before that extends to PCs and non-Windows OSes are blocked? Also, add non-Chrome browsers to that as well (that includes Edge, Chromium, Brave, etc. as well as Firefox and its forks).

  • The GDPR also applies to public institutions as far as I'm aware - but most importantly the concern here is Google and data collected by Google. This data collection is in no way necessary to provide the age verification service. Most of it is not even related to it. The state legally cannot force you to agree to some corporations (i.e. Google's) terms, even if we completely ignore the GDPR.

    Data processing mandated by law is legal. Governments can pass laws, unlike private actors. Public institutions are bound by GDPR, but can also rely on provisions that give them greater leeway.

    I don't see how that this is in any way necessary, either. But a judge may be convinced by the claim that this is industry standard best practice to keep the app safe. In any case, there may be some finer points to the law.

    The state legally cannot force you to agree to some corporations (i.e. Google’s) terms,

    I'm not too sure about that, either. For example, when you are out of work, the state will cause you trouble if you do not find offered jobs acceptable.

    It's another question, if not having access to age-gated content is so bad as to force you to do anything. Minors nominally have the same rights as full citizens, and they are to be denied access, too.

  • You're right but the example you gave seems to illustrate a different effect that's almost opposite — let me explain.

    The phrase "politically correct" is language which meant something very specific, that was then hijacked by the far-right into the culture war where its meaning could be hollowed out/watered down to just mean basically "polite", then used interchangeably in a motte-and-bailey style between the two meanings whenever useful, basically a weaponized fallacy designed to scare and confuse people — and you know that's exactly what it's doing by because no right-winger can define what this boogeyman really means. This has been done before with things like: Critical Race Theory, DEI, cancel culture, woke, cultural Marxism, cultural bolshevism/judeo bolshevism (if you go back far enough), "Great Replacement", "illegals", the list goes on.

    I see your point. I should've limited my citation to the phrase's authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.

    To clarify, the slippery slope towards "political correctness" I wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the "angel investor class", financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.

    What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called "left" and "right" who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley's A Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.

    These are my opinions and not meant as gospel.

  • Its not the populace, our politicians just like in the US have gone rogue. People are voting for the nutters due to anti immigration propaganda and so increasingly getting far right. Its happening across the entire western world and its bad news for everyone.

    Except this isn't even the right wing nutters doing it. These are mainstream politicians executing their power grabbing neolib agenda, with very little democratic oversight or public debate.

  • European Digital identity

    looks inside:

    Hosted on GitHub in the US 👏

    That's ironic

  • Ah, my apologies. It was unclear

    My bad

    My instance could also hint at it 😉

  • I see your point. I should've limited my citation to the phrase's authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.

    To clarify, the slippery slope towards "political correctness" I wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the "angel investor class", financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.

    What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called "left" and "right" who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley's A Brave New World and Orwell's 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.

    These are my opinions and not meant as gospel.

    I get what you mean. You're saying we're sliding towards something that brings back political correctness in its original definition, and I agree with you.

    The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right

    This resonates a lot. I'd argue we're already there. All this talk of "meritocracy" (fallaciously opposed to "DEI"), the prosperity gospel (that one's even older), it's all been promoting this idea of worthiness determined by net worth. Totalitarianism needs a socially accepted might-makes-right narrative wherever it can find it, then that can be the foundation for the fascist dogma/cult that will justify the regime's existence and legitimize its disregard for human life. Bonus points if you can make that might-makes-right narrative sound righteous (e.g. "merit" determines that you "deserve" your wealth, when really it's a circular argument: merit is never questioned for those who have the wealth, it's always assumed because how else could they have made that much money!).

  • There are 3 parties:

    1. the user
    2. the age-gated site
    3. the age verification service

    The site (2) sends the request to the user (1), who passes it on to the service (3) where it is signed and returned the same way. The request comes with a nonce and a time stamp, making reuse difficult. An unusual volume of requests from a single user will be detected by the service.

    from a single user

    Neither 2 nor 3 should receive information about the identity of the user, making it difficult to count the volume of requests by user?

  • How I hacked my washing machine

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    180 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    304 Aufrufe
    H
    This is exactly my experience. I was super confused by the timer on the dryer. Then I called support and they said it was normal for where I live and where the machine sits in the house. Air too humid and spot less than ideal for moisture to be taken away from the machine in a timely fashion.
  • datacenter liquid cooling solution

    Technology technology
    34
    34 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    152 Aufrufe
    B
    And air doesn’t leak all over your electronics. Well it does but it doesn’t short anything out.
  • Unlocking the Legacy of the Honda Acty Across Four Generations

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 195 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    330 Aufrufe
    isveryloud@lemmy.caI
    It's a loaded term that should be replaced with a more nimble definition. A dog whistle is the name for a loaded term that is used to tag a specific target with a large baggage of information, but in a way where only people who are part of the "in group" can understand the baggage of the word, hence "dog whistle", only heard by dogs. In the case of the word "degeneracy", it's a vague word that has been often used to attack, among other things, LGBTQ and their allies as well as non-religious people. The term is vague enough that the user can easily weasel their way out of criticism for its usage, but the target audience gets the message loud and clear: "[target] should be attacked for being [thing]." Another example of such a word would be "woke".
  • How a Spyware App Compromised Assad’s Army

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    41 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    S
    I guess that's why you pay your soldiers. In the early summer of 2024, months before the opposition launched Operation Deterrence of Aggression, a mobile application began circulating among a group of Syrian army officers. It carried an innocuous name: STFD-686, a string of letters standing for Syria Trust for Development. ... The STFD-686 app operated with disarming simplicity. It offered the promise of financial aid, requiring only that the victim fill out a few personal details. It asked innocent questions: “What kind of assistance are you expecting?” and “Tell us more about your financial situation.” ... Determining officers’ ranks made it possible for the app’s operators to identify those in sensitive positions, such as battalion commanders and communications officers, while knowing their exact place of service allowed for the construction of live maps of force deployments. It gave the operators behind the app and the website the ability to chart both strongholds and gaps in the Syrian army’s defensive lines. The most crucial point was the combination of the two pieces of information: Disclosing that “officer X” was stationed at “location Y” was tantamount to handing the enemy the army’s entire operating manual, especially on fluid fronts like those in Idlib and Sweida.
  • 68 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    88 Aufrufe
    heythisisnttheymca@lemmy.worldH
    Worked with the US federal government for much of my professional career, mostly in an adversarial role. "reliable federal data sources" do not exist
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    242 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/