2 ms·

> When someone breaks the law and you get killed as a result, you don't come back to life even if the perpetrators get arrested. lol, well sure. By your reason

> When someone breaks the law and you get killed as a result, you don't come back to life even if the perpetrators get arrested. lol, well sure. By your reasoning we shouldn't have any laws against murder then. > That has a history of not working in this context. This is a brand new context, so not sure how you can say that. Still, got some examples? > It's not your security which is the problem, it's their security, which you have no control over. I never implied otherwise. > You just described "giving your name to someone in order to access the site." The point is you don't give the name to the party seeking to verify. > In many cases the government is the entity you need to have your privacy protected against. Which is where laws and overwatch come in. > This is not a solved problem; it keeps happening. The solved problem is being able to verify age to a non government site without revealing any personal information. Sure, the government could screw stuff up, but then you have an incentive as a voter to prevent that from happening. I understand being skeptical of government competency, but EU governments tend to be better than most in this regard. Besides, far as I can see the eID is not mandatory to use, so just don't.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> By your reasoning we shouldn't have any laws against murder then. You can have the laws, but they don't do any good unless they're enforced, which tends not to happen when the perpetrator is the government. > This is a brand new context, so not sure how you can say that. Still, got some examples? Snowden provided a wide variety of them. > I never implied otherwise. I'm pointing out the inadequate incentives. The ones who have to secure the system aren't the ones who get killed if they fail to. > The point is you don't give the name to the party seeking to verify. But the problem is if you have to give it to anyone. > Which is where laws and overwatch come in. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes has been an unsolved problem for such a long time that it's in Latin. > Sure, the government could screw stuff up, but then you have an incentive as a voter to prevent that from happening. The victims of this kind of thing are persecuted minorities. Minorities by definition don't have a majority of the votes, so appeal to democracy is no solution. > I understand being skeptical of government competency, but EU governments tend to be better than most in this regard. Systems like this tend to persist once they're established, even if the competence of the government implementing them wanes, so it's much better to avoid them being implemented to begin with than to assume that a government that hasn't screwed up today will never screw up tomorrow. > Besides, far as I can see the eID is not mandatory to use, so just don't. If the service allows you to proceed without using it then how could it do any good for age verification? Anyone under age would just opt not to use it. If it doesn't, it's mandatory to the user. And once it exists, services will be put under pressure to require it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Alllright buddy. I don't have time to argue with someone that just wants to be contrarian and argue for the sake of arguing. Best of luck to you. Enjoy the inevitable last word you'll want to have.
  - dudeinjapan 3y ago
    I'll have the last word. AnthonyMouse is right that any centralized govt database presents an opportunity for abuse by the govt itself and theft by an external actor. Although both are ostensibly "against the law" (not counting any secret laws/rulings that clandestinely enable abuse a-la PRISM/FISA courts) illegality presents very little recourse for the victims of those acts (i.e. the common people.) Therefore the magnitude of potential harms should be weighed heavily when choosing to adopt such national databases.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> By your reasoning we shouldn't have any laws against murder then. You can have the laws, but they don't do any good unless they're enforced, which tends not to happen when the perpetrator is the government. > This is a brand new context, so not sure how you can say that. Still, got some examples? Snowden provided a wide variety of them. > I never implied otherwise. I'm pointing out the inadequate incentives. The ones who have to secure the system aren't the ones who get killed if they fail to. > The point is you don't give the name to the party seeking to verify. But the problem is if you have to give it to anyone. > Which is where laws and overwatch come in. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes has been an unsolved problem for such a long time that it's in Latin. > Sure, the government could screw stuff up, but then you have an incentive as a voter to prevent that from happening. The victims of this kind of thing are persecuted minorities. Minorities by definition don't have a majority of the votes, so appeal to democracy is no solution. > I understand being skeptical of government competency, but EU governments tend to be better than most in this regard. Systems like this tend to persist once they're established, even if the competence of the government implementing them wanes, so it's much better to avoid them being implemented to begin with than to assume that a government that hasn't screwed up today will never screw up tomorrow. > Besides, far as I can see the eID is not mandatory to use, so just don't. If the service allows you to proceed without using it then how could it do any good for age verification? Anyone under age would just opt not to use it. If it doesn't, it's mandatory to the user. And once it exists, services will be put under pressure to require it.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Alllright buddy. I don't have time to argue with someone that just wants to be contrarian and argue for the sake of arguing. Best of luck to you. Enjoy the inevitable last word you'll want to have.
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  I'll have the last word. AnthonyMouse is right that any centralized govt database presents an opportunity for abuse by the govt itself and theft by an external actor. Although both are ostensibly "against the law" (not counting any secret laws/rulings that clandestinely enable abuse a-la PRISM/FISA courts) illegality presents very little recourse for the victims of those acts (i.e. the common people.) Therefore the magnitude of potential harms should be weighed heavily when choosing to adopt such national databases.