• PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law.

    Are you not aware of the Digital Services Act? This piece of legislation alone, provides all the incentives for service providers to do exactly that; unless they change their business-model, which is rather unlikely. By default, users should be treated as adults and therefore unrestricted in their access; rather than children unless proven otherwise.

    If the EU would simply mandate operating systems sold within the jurisdiction, to allow specification of an optional ‘date of birth’ field, which is local and purely on a trust-basis (no external verification required); this should be more than sufficient for signaling an age-bracket to a service, which may then serve an “age-appropriate experience”.

    A digital identity wallet should be strictly reserved for matters that already required personal identification. Using such heavy-handed measures for controlling access to adult content, or even social media, is complete and utter overkill. I’m not interested in more empty, technical, server-side “trust me, bro” promises, for something that is fundamentally disproportional.

  • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Supported. Next, start a petition to criminalize politicians pushing the same crappy laws again and again in the hopes they at some point pass.

  • qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    We call on the European Commission to propose legislation ensuring that digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory. Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimisation, selective disclosure, open-source implementation, independent security audits, prohibition of cross-service tracking by relying parties, and equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet.

    Yeah, nah.

    • Lama Thématique@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, I read the language on their website and they seemed to be holding a much stricter line. Here the line seems more blurry where :

      • in that same paragraph they say “remain voluntary” and “should require”
      • “unless strictly necessary” is undefined. Is it all adult contents or banks, insurance and administrative procedure (which already often require IDs) that count as necessary ?
      • Do they have solutions for that “privacy preserving” proof of age ?

      I am not part the campaign so I’m only trying to guess.

      Edit: I have mailed up the Representative of the ECI, I will send an update if i receive a response.

    • threeonefour@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I get the feeling the StopKilling[Thing] people are starting to push for weaker and weaker laws just so that they can say they did something. EU commission shot down your games initiative? No worries, the already proposed Digitial Fairness Act does the same thing anyways!

      California’s proposed bill completely ignores preservation by allowing games to be deleted so long as purchasers receive a refund? That’s a win!

      Also I just looked up the California bill, it has been amended.

      It used to read:

      A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser

      Now it reads:

      A refund in an amount equal to the highest price of the digital game offered by the digital game operator within the 12 months before the digital game operator ceases providing services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.

      So if the studio drops the price to $1 a year before taking the game away then they can delete everyone’s copy by giving them $1 without breaking this law.

      The StopKillingGames people made a fanfare about the initial legislation, but they seem to be silent on this amendment.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Signed, but be careful, the website is shitty and does not let you out with the back button.