As I've written before, this could have been an HTTP header. Basically we should have two Internets, one for children and one for adults. This is like the difference between a children's library...
As I've written before, this could have been an HTTP header.
Basically we should have two Internets, one for children and one for adults. This is like the difference between a children's library and the main library. It's not that adults never go into the children's library or children are never allowed in the main library, but they have a different intended audience, and children should be supervised in the main library.
So, it makes sense to have child-locked devices that send an HTTP header indicating that they're child-locked, and cooperating websites send different content. For example, there should be no advertising and you can't buy anything on the children's Internet, and websites for adults don't let you set up an account or log in if the HTTP header is present.
It's up to parents to give their kids child-locked devices if they're going to let them browse the Internet by themselves, and vendors shouldn't sell unrestricted devices to kids.
Also, child-locked devices stlll need extra filtering because it's not like every website is going to cooperate. But the more legit websites will, and there can be laws coercing them into cooperating if needed.
If you do that, no identity-checking is needed. And there's no particular age when kids are allowed in the adult library. It's up to their parents and teachers.
The actual objectives text seem at to contradict the title if I'm not missreading: Emphasis is mine, but that part reads more like what I think is actually being worked on; i.e. an age...
The actual objectives text seem at to contradict the title if I'm not missreading:
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.
Emphasis is mine, but that part reads more like what I think is actually being worked on; i.e. an age verification system where e.g. a website can ask the user to prove that they are an adult (not their exact age mind you) and the user has a way to provide that via a trusted party. The trusted party also doesn't receive any information about who the user is trying to prove their identity too.
If that comes to pass I'd think that would be a fine balance to strike. You kind of have to trust someone and better if this isn't being controlled by some corporate entity and that retaining information and tracking is a strict non-goal.
I might be wrong, but I think eIDAS has something along these lines going?
I accept that all this is a super misguided attempt to regulate the parts of the internet that are actually really bad for us, for our children, and for society So like, what's the alternative?...
I accept that all this is a super misguided attempt to regulate the parts of the internet that are actually really bad for us, for our children, and for society
So like, what's the alternative? Obviously this isn't going to work, and we're getting nowhere with attempting to sue the tech giants, so, what?
I haven't seen the details. There are large differences between what a single company can agree to in a voluntary situation, and what can be forced through. How many of those concessions would be...
I haven't seen the details. There are large differences between what a single company can agree to in a voluntary situation, and what can be forced through.
How many of those concessions would be unconstitutional to impose by force on all companies in the US? I expect most of the important ones.
Are a lack of digital ID and age verification keeping the Internet alive? I guess "Maintain proportional demands for identification based on the true security needs balanced against the broad...
Are a lack of digital ID and age verification keeping the Internet alive? I guess "Maintain proportional demands for identification based on the true security needs balanced against the broad public need for a private life." doesn't have the same punch.
As I've written before, this could have been an HTTP header.
Basically we should have two Internets, one for children and one for adults. This is like the difference between a children's library and the main library. It's not that adults never go into the children's library or children are never allowed in the main library, but they have a different intended audience, and children should be supervised in the main library.
So, it makes sense to have child-locked devices that send an HTTP header indicating that they're child-locked, and cooperating websites send different content. For example, there should be no advertising and you can't buy anything on the children's Internet, and websites for adults don't let you set up an account or log in if the HTTP header is present.
It's up to parents to give their kids child-locked devices if they're going to let them browse the Internet by themselves, and vendors shouldn't sell unrestricted devices to kids.
Also, child-locked devices stlll need extra filtering because it's not like every website is going to cooperate. But the more legit websites will, and there can be laws coercing them into cooperating if needed.
If you do that, no identity-checking is needed. And there's no particular age when kids are allowed in the adult library. It's up to their parents and teachers.
The actual objectives text seem at to contradict the title if I'm not missreading:
Emphasis is mine, but that part reads more like what I think is actually being worked on; i.e. an age verification system where e.g. a website can ask the user to prove that they are an adult (not their exact age mind you) and the user has a way to provide that via a trusted party. The trusted party also doesn't receive any information about who the user is trying to prove their identity too.
If that comes to pass I'd think that would be a fine balance to strike. You kind of have to trust someone and better if this isn't being controlled by some corporate entity and that retaining information and tracking is a strict non-goal.
I might be wrong, but I think eIDAS has something along these lines going?
edit: I think I found the link to some info regarding this: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/930450954/The+Age+Verification+Manual
So essentially what the initiative is striving for is already happening?
I accept that all this is a super misguided attempt to regulate the parts of the internet that are actually really bad for us, for our children, and for society
So like, what's the alternative? Obviously this isn't going to work, and we're getting nowhere with attempting to sue the tech giants, so, what?
You say that we're getting nowhere, but Meta just settled a major lawsuit which includes a long list of concessions.
I haven't seen the details. There are large differences between what a single company can agree to in a voluntary situation, and what can be forced through.
How many of those concessions would be unconstitutional to impose by force on all companies in the US? I expect most of the important ones.
Are a lack of digital ID and age verification keeping the Internet alive? I guess "Maintain proportional demands for identification based on the true security needs balanced against the broad public need for a private life." doesn't have the same punch.