This initiative is just a smokescreen; it actually pushes things down the slippery slope.
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
Define “necessary”. Define “by law”. The pushers for proof-of-age already say it’s anonymous – but it can’t be.
I agree it needs to be well defined. But there are government and private services that require identification and uploading selfies and passport pictures onto random websites is worse than a regulated ID service that can provide a trusted API.
There are tons of risks though: data gathering, privacy invasion, censorship, disproportionality…
That’s why I prefer good regulation. One that also defines when it’s “necessary” and when it’s inappropriate to the point of illegal.
Let’s add more conditions: privately owned or managed brings the risk to open up the “service” to more and more websites that don’t need or shouldn’t require your identity. If it has no monetary interests that risk is reduced. Not when you live in an oligarchy though…
No, we don’t; it’s exactly as you say. My impression is that this is something organized by the pro-chat-control and pro-age-verification lobbies, to deceive with words people who are against. They get them to sign and then they can say “people signed for this!”.
This initiative is just a smokescreen; it actually pushes things down the slippery slope.
Define “necessary”. Define “by law”. The pushers for proof-of-age already say it’s anonymous – but it can’t be.
I asked theses questions to the person in charge, and published the response, you can read both questions and answers here : https://lemmy.world/post/51227026/25554402
I agree it needs to be well defined. But there are government and private services that require identification and uploading selfies and passport pictures onto random websites is worse than a regulated ID service that can provide a trusted API.
There are tons of risks though: data gathering, privacy invasion, censorship, disproportionality…
That’s why I prefer good regulation. One that also defines when it’s “necessary” and when it’s inappropriate to the point of illegal.
Let’s add more conditions: privately owned or managed brings the risk to open up the “service” to more and more websites that don’t need or shouldn’t require your identity. If it has no monetary interests that risk is reduced. Not when you live in an oligarchy though…
do we sign it this way? it would just agree to doing nothing but with fancy words, wouldn’t it?
No, we don’t; it’s exactly as you say. My impression is that this is something organized by the pro-chat-control and pro-age-verification lobbies, to deceive with words people who are against. They get them to sign and then they can say “people signed for this!”.
It’s surely important to spread an anti-misinformation campaign!