• iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    is being vouched for by some government-approved service.

    The reverse is also a necessity: the government approved service should not be allowed to know who and for what a proof of age is requested.

    And because the service has to be in the EU, government-certified with regular inspections, that’s safe enough

    Of course not: both intentional and unintentional leaking of this information already happens, regularly. That information should simply not be captured, at all!

    Additionally, what happens to, for example, the people in Hungary(*)? If the middle man government service knows when and who is requesting proof-of-age, it’s easy to de-anonymise for example users of gay porn sites.

    The 3rd party solution, as you present it, sounds terribly dangerous!

    (*) Hungary as a contemporary example of a near despot leader, but more will pop up in EU over the coming years.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      The reverse is also a necessity: the government approved service should not be allowed to know who and for what a proof of age is requested.

      It would send the proof to you. It would not know what you do with it. I gave an example in the previous post how the identity of the user could be hidden from the service.

      If the middle man government service knows when and who is requesting proof-of-age, it’s easy to de-anonymise for example users of gay porn sites.

      It would be a lot easier to get that information from the ISP.

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I gave an example in the previous post how the identity of the user could be hidden from the service.

        In both your examples the government service has your full identity, then pinky promises to forget it.

        Unless I’m misunderstanding something?

        It would be a lot easier to get that information from the ISP.

        Not quite the same, as IP addresses are shared through NAT, VPNs exist, etc. With the proposed legislation it is illegal for website operators to deliver content to known VPN ips, as they cannot confirm that the end user isn’t a EU subject.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          In both your examples the government service has your full identity, then pinky promises to forget it.

          It can be like buying alcohol in a store. They look at you and see your age. Or if it’s unclear, the store clerk asks your idea and promptly forgets all about it. Except you’re not buying alcohol but a login for some age verifier.

          • iii@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            So yes, they get your identity, then promise to forget it.

            That’s a worst of both worlds proposal: it makes it trivial to deanonymise people, and it doesn’t solve the replay attacks.

              • iii@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                46 minutes ago

                They ask for ID card indeed, making it super easy to just make a copy. On top of that, your payment details are stored. You’re on camera. Etc.

                Super easy to automate deanonymization. (1).