The push for an "age verification" requirement on the Internet is 1% aimed at protecting children and 99% aimed at controlling speech. It effectively bans anonymity, for starters.

It is a license to speak, and read.

https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-the-dangers-of-age-verification-proposals-to-fundamental-rights-online/

Open letter: The dangers of age verification proposals to fundamental rights online - European Digital Rights (EDRi)

On 16 September, EDRi and 63 organisations, academics and experts in privacy, encryption, child safety, sex workers' rights and consumer rights issued a joint statement urging the European Commission to prioritise effective child safety measures while expressing serious concerns about the suitability, proportionality, and negative impact on fundamental rights of current age verification proposals.

European Digital Rights (EDRi)
@dangillmor My old account had this pinned in the profile - https://mastodon.laurenweinstein.org/@lauren/112159181466361511 something I believe is relevant to add on here.
Lauren Weinstein (@[email protected])

@[email protected] It's important to understand that "age verification" schemes being passed by states, ostensibly to "protect the children", won't do that and will bring about incredible abuses. In order to age verify children, obviously EVERYBODY of any age must be verified, for every account, under every name or pseudonym, ultimately on every site no matter how public or private the topic, and before downloading any apps. Children will find ways to work around this. They'll use the accounts of adults, which will be openly traded. But because these age verification systems must by definition be based on government IDs, the verification process creates a linkage between your account names and your actual identity, subjecting you to all manner of leaked personal information, government abuses (think MAGA in charge), and worse. Firms will claim their systems either don't keep this data or can't be abused. History strongly suggests otherwise, and when courts step in, those firms will have to do what the courts say, often in secret, when it comes to collecting data. Age verification is in actuality a massive Chinese-style Internet identity tracking project -- nothing less -- and there are many politicians in the U.S. who look with envy at how China controls their Internet and keeps their Internet users under police state controls.

Mastodon
@puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor this should only ne possible with state level service, giving validation for age in range without : knowing what is asking, and who on the other side.
@kazord @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor Give the state the right to decide who can read or publish? No thanks.
@wolnyjez @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor better than any corporation ...
As long as it cannot know for what the age is used for ofc

@kazord @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor Even if this system were fully anonymous, it is still a dangerous idea.

Such a system could easily be extended to check other "attributes" of a citizen. For example:
- whether or not you are in arrears with your taxes,
- whether or not you have been vaccinated,
- whether you have taken part in anti-government protests,
- whether you have criticised the government on social media in the last 12 months,

and so on.

@wolnyjez @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor those data arent already collected by your state (at least mine). The problem is on those data collection and usage with or without any digital gate/filtering.

Not restrict digital access by age (as we do irl for alcool and tabaco)

@kazord @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor I agree that data collection is a problem. So the less the state knows about a citizen the better.

The problem with age-verification systems is that it is just a ploy to create a mandatory digital identity.

Because how else do you restrict access to certain content for minors? Everyone has to confirm that they are an adult, so everyone has to have a digital ID.

@wolnyjez @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor dunno on your country, but here we already have 2 digital identity, one for income taxe (basicly 18+), one for school/diploma (roughly 13+ )

But we can't use them directly as it not anonym at all and give a lot of personal informations (both to visited website or to the state)

@kazord @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor I am from PL. We have a system called mCitizen, which is a digital ID card, so far it is harmless and is mainly used to verify identity between people.

But there are already plans to use it as a pass to adult websites (under the pretext of protecting children), and even as a pass to social media (under the pretext of fighting hate speech).

These systems were supposed to serve the people, and unfortunately they are starting to be used to control them.

@wolnyjez @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor OK that sad, as it already link usage with the identity ...

@kazord @puppygirlhornypost2 @dangillmor This is part of a larger plan to introduce a pan-European digital wallet. Polish politicians, of course, argue that the system will be anonymous. They refer to the EU's eIDAS2.0 regulation. And indeed, the eIDAS2.0 regulation requires the digital wallet to be anonymous.

However, the EU wallet's implementation guidelines clearly state that state services are to be able to de-anonymise the user.

This is not anonymity. Politicians are lying, as usual.

@puppygirlhornypost2
#PostOfTheWeek (season 1):
Children will find ways to work around this. They'll use the accounts of adults, which will be openly traded. But because these age verification systems must by definition be based on government IDs, the verification process creates a linkage between your account names and your actual identity.
Age verification is in actuality a massive Chinese-style Internet identity tracking project.
@dangillmor

If it's not "children" being used as an excuse, it's "terrorists" or "criminals" (though those two are more-frequenly conjoined with "the 'going dark' problem").
@dangillmor
Toxic prudishness also is just a bad thing by itself. I don't get what exactly they are so afraid of will happen to kids.
@dangillmor Yep. In addition to those concerns I really worry about the vast dodgy behind-the-scenes storage, transfer, and processing of important ID documents that opens us all up to huge data breaches, scammers, impersonation, and ultimately a regular invalidation of a large number of people's ID documents due to the abuse that *will* happen when this sort of system is created.
@slowe @dangillmor I agree, this is a huge potential catastrophe. I've already had two or three notices (that I can recall) just this year of data breaches from companies that I hadn't heard of, that handle data for large insurance companies and health care billing. Imagine every website owner, small business, and blog having to do this too!
@scrummy @slowe @dangillmor Many just wouldn't operate anymore, the burden of needing to keep PII private and secure is more overhead than they can afford in terms of time and money.
why does every catastrophe happen to "protect the children"
are they a scapegoat now or what
@dangillmor What would become of online hate speech and death threats if anonymity on social media was banned?
@Tristananthony @dangillmor Very little? Plenty of people post that stuff under their real names on Xitter and Facebook all the time…
@stephengentle @dangillmor There’s no excuse not to prosecute then.

@Tristananthony @dangillmor

What would become of vulnerable minorities and victims of crime who are scared to speak out in case they are attacked again?

What would become of whistleblowers and journalists' sources?

What would happen to the massive amount of personal data traceable to a real individual that would be collected by the social media companies? Linking data to a specific confirmed person makes such data much more valuable to databrokers.

@Tristananthony @dangillmor one thing we do know

It won't go away, if that is what you were hoping

@dangillmor The governments come up with the most ludicrous reasons why they want x or z
- protect the children
- fight terrorism
- fight right wing extremists
- fight left wing extremists
- fight illegal immigration
- 1000 more reasons

Nothing of that matters because all the governments try to do is get more power over data collection and analysis and do some AI shit on it. And they will try and try again until they get what they want.
You can watch the slow erosion in the EU despite GDPR.

@dangillmor Age verification is tech speak for ending freedom of every sort. Fascism is everywhere.
@dangillmor Just a reminder that my #tor node accepts all users from all countries and anonymously connects them to servers their government cannot control

@dangillmor

If this sort of legislation isn't suitable, what do you think would be the best way to protect children online?

@gsymon @dangillmor
Their parents?

@wolnyjez @dangillmor

Well, wouldn't it be great if parents always got it right. Some Catholics would be feeling a lot better about life.

@gsymon @dangillmor
They are not always right, but a few parents who are not coping is no reason to give the state such a powerful tool.

(A tool that will be extended to other types of websites in the future, I have no doubt about that)

@dangillmor Whenever you hear politicians say, "it's for the kids", it's never for the "kids". It's about a power grab.

@dangillmor

Journalists often talk about "speech" as if it must have only come into existence with the Internet.

If you can post handbills, and your message is actually important, if you are really the one breaking a story that people NEED to hear, then your handbills will be repeated quickly, you are not silenced.

The Internet isn't "speech".
It's "reach".

Well apparently somebody thinks ISPs and Mobile operators sell services to random unknown people using untraceable currencies.