7 ms·

I know most of this affects only the US, but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU if the Age Verification Tech goes ahead in America. There's been lots of

I know most of this affects only the US, but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU if the Age Verification Tech goes ahead in America. There's been lots of efforts to increase surveillance disguised as protection for kids in the EU and UK. The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech, but the multiple intrusions and lobbying by Palantir and friends in the EU gives me the ick.

OccamsMirror 7mo ago
This does not only affect the US. They're ramming this kind of bullshit into law in Australia too. As rapidly as they can.
jwr 7mo ago
The EU, unfortunately, has shown to be very susceptible to this kind of lobbying in the past. We regularly see legislation that is being rammed and rushed through in spite of vocal opposition. I would be very, very worried. (EU citizen)
- abc123abc123 7mo ago
  Yep. Sadly the EU is more or less lost, and freedom online will be squashed. I would not be surprised if age verification will tie in with the EU digital wallet, and with the EU democracy shield surveillance project, so that any opposition to Brussels ideological stance will get you disconnected from your bank, money, purchases, and your ability to ID yourself. Basically, the chinese, through WTO, managed to utilize corona to show politicians, regardless of color, the enormous power of complete digital control of the population. Our spineless and incompetent EU politicians thought it very erotic, and are now ramming it down our throats. I don't really see a way to stop this apart from moving to south america or africa, to a small country with a weak government.
- dotandgtfo 7mo ago
  What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.
  - timmmmmmay 7mo ago
    "repeatedly struck down" means somebody keeps bringing it back
    - dotandgtfo 7mo ago
      They're proposals by a minority. I'd like to see it go to see chat control go to grave permanently, but I'd also rather not that the democratic system allows for the permanent barring an impossible to define class of proposals from even being proposed. Or do you have other solutions?
      - jonathanstrange 7mo ago
        I'm definitely for creating EU directives that enhances digital privacy rights and sovereignty to block whole classes of privacy-endangering surveillance proposals in the future. That seems like the best solution to me. It's much better than allowing those proposals to be made again and again until they are passed in some shady package deal. Even if such a proposal is struck down by local laws, constitutions, or the ECHR, once they have the foot in the door, they will only be modified minimally to comply with the constitution.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - latexr 7mo ago
    > The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down. So far. But they’ll keep lobbying and we’ll need to keep fighting. > What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? Digital Omnibus is another. https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-omnibus-eu-simplification-far-removed-real-business-needs https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-omnibus-eu-simplification-far-remove... https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-digital-omnibus-reflects-key-lobbying-messaging-from-large-tech-companies-ngo-analysis-claims/ https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-digit...
    - 7mo ago
- roysting 7mo ago
  The EU puts a nice shine on things, but there are systemic and fundamental characteristics of the EU that not only make it more susceptible to "lobbying" and ignoring the electorate; which are also far more difficult to change by that electorate than in the USA where we still have direct elections of individuals not party lists (in most cases) that cause total loyalty to the party, not the constituency.
  - ozlikethewizard 7mo ago
    But the EU also doesn't have the same level of power as the US federal government. It's a loosely federated coalition of seperate nations, not one entity.
    - roysting 7mo ago
      That was the idea of what the EU would be ... now it dictates what people can eat and do even though it is not actually a legitimate or sovereign government, while national/local elections are effectively meaningless exercises as even and especially in Europe, the local elected officials generally will be loyal to the party that can and will protect and bequeath benefits upon them over any local constituents. The EU was and is a con job. Unfortunately, you still believe the old promise of "massive returns with zero risk", until you want to withdraw your earnings. "A loosely federated coalition of separate nations, not one entity" is actually a very good description of what the USA was before the Civil War and would technically need to abide by in order to be Constitutionally valid and legitimate; but alas, we have whatever this world dominating empire is that wraps itself in the branding and stolen identity of the United States of America, a literal antithesis of what the founders created. It is why there has always been such an intense and relentless propaganda effort to demonize "states' rights", the equivalent of which legitimate European sovereign countries and people will likely also face if the plans to the powers that are seeking to conquer the whole planet succeed. You will be told, your "loosely federated coalition of separate nations" have no right to claim sovereignty or what we call "state nullification", i.e., "states' rights" to simply nullify and invalidate any federal law that is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, i.e., the right of states to anything not explicitly conferred upon the Federal government. Actually, you don't even have to wait, there have been several examples already that proved without a shadow of a doubt that EU countries are not only no longer sovereign, i.e., "loosely federated coalition of separate states" when certain states disagree or do not wish to go along/vote for what the unelected body of the EU Commission conjures as legislation. You are just visiting the dungeon until you want to leave and the gate has been shut on you.
- bootsmann 7mo ago
  The Swiss eID is designed the way it is to comply with the EUs digital ID proposal so I wouldn't doom this early. (this one: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eudi-regulation https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eudi-regul...)
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- boondongle 7mo ago
  This is because it's not an EU/Canada/US thing as much as some would like to make it. It's a "losing that one election" thing. "What about the Children" always sells. What the EU/Canada have is that the US got hit with this wave first so they can see the results. That's a data point the American Voter only had in theory, not in example form. The recent uptick of nationalism has people thinking there's some essentialism between states and there really isn't - anyone who's travelled in more places than the city knows it.
Cthulhu_ 7mo ago
I think age verification laws are good in principle - there's a lot of stuff on the internet that people should be protected from. But it's the manner of age verification that is the issue. The EU has zero knowledge proof age verification systems, e.g. through your bank, which are secure and don't involve sending a copy of your ID and / or face scan to a dodgy US based 3rd party.
- djxfade 7mo ago
  I disagree. What if, hear me out, parents actually parent, instead of relegating the parenting to companies, and ruining the internet for the rest of us?
  - pzo 7mo ago
    agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system. Goverments should only focus on educating parents (available tools, recommendations) and maybe provide some open source tooling for parents.
    - II2II 7mo ago
      > agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system We also have to consider that "children" covers anywhere from birth to approximately 18 years old. It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more independence. For example: they are able to go places on their own, get their own phone, etc.. In the physical world, we have laws that recognize this, things like forbidding the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors. Responsibility is placed on the vendor to check identification when selling such products and the customer's age is suspect. It would be absurd to place responsibility on parents in this case since the most a parent can do is educate their child. Now I understand the Internet poses problems when it comes to similar transactions. For face to face transactions, appearing old enough is often sufficient (perhaps with a buffer to avoid liability) for access without presenting identification. While it isn't truly anonymous, there are cases where it can be reasonably anonymous. Unfortunately, transactions are mediated by machines on the Internet. You cannot make any assumptions about the other person. Making matters worse: it is extraordinarily difficult to do age verification without disclosing identify information, and to do so in a manner that is easily recorded. Whether that information is provided directly or through a third party is a moot point. It is still being provided. I don't know how we go about solving this problem, but I do know two things: - Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd, and would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents. It is creating a nanny-state where the nanny is the parent. The youth would be unable to gradually gain independence, nor develop an identity independent of their parents' whims. - We live in a world which is eager to age-gate things that should not be. Sometimes this is for semi-legitimate reasons due to how the Internet is structured. For example: there is no good reasons why children and youth cannot participate in things like discussion forums, but those forums definitely cannot look like the "social media" we have today. Other times it is for despicable reasons, such as making value based judgements based upon ideology. (The left and right are both guilty of this.)
boesboes 7mo ago
As mentioned in the article, the EU already has a different plan
pjc50 7mo ago
The UK is absolutely picking the most stupid option (delegate it to US companies doing face recognition)
- mosura 7mo ago
  Right, if these countries want these laws at least ensure the verification is all done within the country in question and the data never leaves. Of course, that defeats the entire point of the exercise.
- domh 7mo ago
  I keep emailing my (Labour) MP about this, I suggest you do the same! I get the standard "protecting the children" response. I am not voting Labour again if this madness is still in place (or worse!) at the next GE.
  - pjc50 7mo ago
    MPs are pretty bad at dealing with anything that doesn't come from the party or the newspapers. I'm donating to the Open Rights Group to care about this on my behalf. (my MP is SNP, so I benefit from not being in the two party trap)
- roysting 7mo ago
  Is it stupid or intentional? I believe the latter. There are many layers that these kinds of things go through before they are pushed in that manner and not in a "smart" manner that respects rights of the majority of the population. They are chasing this path for deliberate reasons, regardless of what they may be, or whether you like it or not. Ironically, they can only engage in these "stupid" things because people don't force them to not engage in "stupid things". Silence in consent in these kinds of cases.
stavros 7mo ago
[dead]
sschueller 7mo ago
The Swiss eID is open source[1] and it's usage will be limited. Any type of age verification for online service would need go to a vote and would probably loose. "Eigenverantwortung", it is the parents job to look after the kids, not the state. [1] https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch
- kakacik 7mo ago
  You can't just push responsibility for the kids to the parents, where is the world going? This is madness. The next thing you are going to claim kids from young age shouldn't have fully unlocked smart phones, shouldn't install any app and so on. Where is the end of this? Are you telling me parents should spend more time with kids, heck even be their role models although it is much harder compared to just giving up on them and let the glorious internet and various fashionate toxic tribes raise them? Blasphemy!!!
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - intrasight 7mo ago
    I totally agree with that sentiment but we can and should both have good parents and safe devices.
    - PeterStuer 7mo ago
      Where has a few decades of "safety" culture catering to the greater moron really brought us?
      - Forgeties79 7mo ago
        Seatbelts and helmets have saved countless lives
        intrasight 7mo ago
TacticalCoder 7mo ago
> ... but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU There's more money spent in lobbyism in the EU than anywhere else in the world. Lobbyism and downright corruption: like Qatari bribing EU MEPs [1] and police finding 1 million EUR in bills hidden at a MEP's apartment (in this case a bribe to explain publicly that Qatar is a country oh-so-respectful of human rights). The EU is way more corrupt than the US and in many EU countries there's little private sector compared to the US. In France for example more than 60% of the GDP is public spending and all the big companies are state or partially state-owned or owned by people very close to the state. And as to american companies bribing EU politicians: it's nothing new. IBM and Microsoft for example are two names everybody in the business knows have been splurging money to buy influence and illegal kickbacks have always been flying. It's just the way things have always been operating. Today you can very likely add Google and Palantir etc. to the list but it's nothing new. EU politicians are whores. And cheap whores at that: investigative journalists have shown, in the past, the little amount of money that was needed to buy their votes. Most of them go into politics to extract as much taxpayers money as they can for their own benefit. They of course love to get bribes. Also to try to not get caught, EU politicians voted themselves special powers and it's very difficult for the regular police to enter official EU buildings. I know an police inspector who went and arrested a MEP for possession of child porn: it required a very long procedure, way longer than usual, and the request of special authorization allowing them to enter the EU parliament (or EU commission, don't remember which but I think it was MEP at the EP). American companies bribing EU politicians should scare you indeed: it's been ongoing since forever. > The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility Switzerland is in Europe but it's not in the EU: it's not representative of the insane corruption present in the EU institutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili
crimsoneer 7mo ago
Is there any evidence Palantir is doing any of this? Doesn't really seem like their wheelhouse?
- drtgh 7mo ago
  https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc?rid=758249296966-23 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc... https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc?rid=553786035745-66 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc... Lobbyists having Palantir as a client: FTI Consulting Belgium, https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?rid=29896393398-67&sid=143828 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?ri...
nimbius 7mo ago
one hypothesis for why meta wants this is because AI (including its own push for it) has turned much of the internet and its social media platforms into slopfarms and clickbots that advertisers are increasingly moving away from. The real driver is as always, ad revenue. This time, advertisers want and need to know a real human is engaging the brand and Meta cannot see any other way in sight to assure this fact save for age verification. this is just the latest evolution of surveillance capitalism.
drtgh 7mo ago
Not only the US. In the updated post [1] that was deleted at Reddit [2], it is commented there are three firms confirmed operating for Meta in both EU and US jurisdictions, Firm: Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), EU Role: EUR 680K for AI Act, DMA, DSA. US Connection: APCO offices in DC; Meta VP calls them "integrated members of our Meta team". Firm: White & Case LLP, EU Role: EUR 50-100K. digital markets/services. US Connection: Lead international outside counsel, 70+ lawyer team. Firm: FTI Consulting Belgium, EU Role: EUR 10-25K. US Connection: Subsidiary of FTI Consulting Inc (NYSE: FCN, HQ Washington DC). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pulled_irs_filings_for_the_org_that/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddi... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pulled_irs_filings_for_the_org_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pul... This sounds like the mere tip of the iceberg, as it is commented that they maintain two separate networks with no overlap (their age verification lobbying goes through local specialists with no international footprint). Edit: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=516856946153-57 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=5168569461... Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), clients for closed financial year, Jan 2024 - Dec 2024, - meta platforms ireland limited and its various subsidiaries, 50'000€ - 99'999€: EU Green Deal, EU AI Act, the European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+), online safety. - verifymy limited ( age verification business), 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act; eIDAS Regulation; Strategy for a better Internet for kids (BIK+); EU Artificial Intelligence Act; General Data Protection Regulation. - user rights gmbh, 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act.
dylan604 7mo ago
Why do you think the EU would not also jump on the bandwagon if the OS makers have already done the work to comply with US laws? It would be less work on the OS makers to make it for all users rather than trying to determine what jurisdiction the computer was being used and to know if the verification was necessary based on that.
kogasa240p 7mo ago
> The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech Switzerland will be the exception, not the rule when it comes to internet ID debauchery.
biztos 7mo ago
Probably off topic, but is the cringey wordplay between e-ID and Eid (as in Genossenschaft) intentional in Switzerland? https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e

OccamsMirror 7mo ago

This does not only affect the US. They're ramming this kind of bullshit into law in Australia too. As rapidly as they can.

jwr 7mo ago

The EU, unfortunately, has shown to be very susceptible to this kind of lobbying in the past. We regularly see legislation that is being rammed and rushed through in spite of vocal opposition. I would be very, very worried. (EU citizen)

abc123abc123 7mo ago
Yep. Sadly the EU is more or less lost, and freedom online will be squashed. I would not be surprised if age verification will tie in with the EU digital wallet, and with the EU democracy shield surveillance project, so that any opposition to Brussels ideological stance will get you disconnected from your bank, money, purchases, and your ability to ID yourself. Basically, the chinese, through WTO, managed to utilize corona to show politicians, regardless of color, the enormous power of complete digital control of the population. Our spineless and incompetent EU politicians thought it very erotic, and are now ramming it down our throats. I don't really see a way to stop this apart from moving to south america or africa, to a small country with a weak government.
dotandgtfo 7mo ago
What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.
- timmmmmmay 7mo ago
  "repeatedly struck down" means somebody keeps bringing it back
  - dotandgtfo 7mo ago
    They're proposals by a minority. I'd like to see it go to see chat control go to grave permanently, but I'd also rather not that the democratic system allows for the permanent barring an impossible to define class of proposals from even being proposed. Or do you have other solutions?
    - jonathanstrange 7mo ago
      I'm definitely for creating EU directives that enhances digital privacy rights and sovereignty to block whole classes of privacy-endangering surveillance proposals in the future. That seems like the best solution to me. It's much better than allowing those proposals to be made again and again until they are passed in some shady package deal. Even if such a proposal is struck down by local laws, constitutions, or the ECHR, once they have the foot in the door, they will only be modified minimally to comply with the constitution.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- latexr 7mo ago
  > The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down. So far. But they’ll keep lobbying and we’ll need to keep fighting. > What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? Digital Omnibus is another. https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-omnibus-eu-simplification-far-removed-real-business-needs https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-omnibus-eu-simplification-far-remove... https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-digital-omnibus-reflects-key-lobbying-messaging-from-large-tech-companies-ngo-analysis-claims/ https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-digit...
  - 7mo ago
roysting 7mo ago
The EU puts a nice shine on things, but there are systemic and fundamental characteristics of the EU that not only make it more susceptible to "lobbying" and ignoring the electorate; which are also far more difficult to change by that electorate than in the USA where we still have direct elections of individuals not party lists (in most cases) that cause total loyalty to the party, not the constituency.
- ozlikethewizard 7mo ago
  But the EU also doesn't have the same level of power as the US federal government. It's a loosely federated coalition of seperate nations, not one entity.
  - roysting 7mo ago
    That was the idea of what the EU would be ... now it dictates what people can eat and do even though it is not actually a legitimate or sovereign government, while national/local elections are effectively meaningless exercises as even and especially in Europe, the local elected officials generally will be loyal to the party that can and will protect and bequeath benefits upon them over any local constituents. The EU was and is a con job. Unfortunately, you still believe the old promise of "massive returns with zero risk", until you want to withdraw your earnings. "A loosely federated coalition of separate nations, not one entity" is actually a very good description of what the USA was before the Civil War and would technically need to abide by in order to be Constitutionally valid and legitimate; but alas, we have whatever this world dominating empire is that wraps itself in the branding and stolen identity of the United States of America, a literal antithesis of what the founders created. It is why there has always been such an intense and relentless propaganda effort to demonize "states' rights", the equivalent of which legitimate European sovereign countries and people will likely also face if the plans to the powers that are seeking to conquer the whole planet succeed. You will be told, your "loosely federated coalition of separate nations" have no right to claim sovereignty or what we call "state nullification", i.e., "states' rights" to simply nullify and invalidate any federal law that is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, i.e., the right of states to anything not explicitly conferred upon the Federal government. Actually, you don't even have to wait, there have been several examples already that proved without a shadow of a doubt that EU countries are not only no longer sovereign, i.e., "loosely federated coalition of separate states" when certain states disagree or do not wish to go along/vote for what the unelected body of the EU Commission conjures as legislation. You are just visiting the dungeon until you want to leave and the gate has been shut on you.
bootsmann 7mo ago
The Swiss eID is designed the way it is to comply with the EUs digital ID proposal so I wouldn't doom this early. (this one: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eudi-regulation https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eudi-regul...)
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
boondongle 7mo ago
This is because it's not an EU/Canada/US thing as much as some would like to make it. It's a "losing that one election" thing. "What about the Children" always sells. What the EU/Canada have is that the US got hit with this wave first so they can see the results. That's a data point the American Voter only had in theory, not in example form. The recent uptick of nationalism has people thinking there's some essentialism between states and there really isn't - anyone who's travelled in more places than the city knows it.

Cthulhu_ 7mo ago

I think age verification laws are good in principle - there's a lot of stuff on the internet that people should be protected from. But it's the manner of age verification that is the issue. The EU has zero knowledge proof age verification systems, e.g. through your bank, which are secure and don't involve sending a copy of your ID and / or face scan to a dodgy US based 3rd party.

djxfade 7mo ago
I disagree. What if, hear me out, parents actually parent, instead of relegating the parenting to companies, and ruining the internet for the rest of us?
- pzo 7mo ago
  agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system. Goverments should only focus on educating parents (available tools, recommendations) and maybe provide some open source tooling for parents.
  - II2II 7mo ago
    > agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system We also have to consider that "children" covers anywhere from birth to approximately 18 years old. It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more independence. For example: they are able to go places on their own, get their own phone, etc.. In the physical world, we have laws that recognize this, things like forbidding the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors. Responsibility is placed on the vendor to check identification when selling such products and the customer's age is suspect. It would be absurd to place responsibility on parents in this case since the most a parent can do is educate their child. Now I understand the Internet poses problems when it comes to similar transactions. For face to face transactions, appearing old enough is often sufficient (perhaps with a buffer to avoid liability) for access without presenting identification. While it isn't truly anonymous, there are cases where it can be reasonably anonymous. Unfortunately, transactions are mediated by machines on the Internet. You cannot make any assumptions about the other person. Making matters worse: it is extraordinarily difficult to do age verification without disclosing identify information, and to do so in a manner that is easily recorded. Whether that information is provided directly or through a third party is a moot point. It is still being provided. I don't know how we go about solving this problem, but I do know two things: - Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd, and would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents. It is creating a nanny-state where the nanny is the parent. The youth would be unable to gradually gain independence, nor develop an identity independent of their parents' whims. - We live in a world which is eager to age-gate things that should not be. Sometimes this is for semi-legitimate reasons due to how the Internet is structured. For example: there is no good reasons why children and youth cannot participate in things like discussion forums, but those forums definitely cannot look like the "social media" we have today. Other times it is for despicable reasons, such as making value based judgements based upon ideology. (The left and right are both guilty of this.)

boesboes 7mo ago

As mentioned in the article, the EU already has a different plan

pjc50 7mo ago

The UK is absolutely picking the most stupid option (delegate it to US companies doing face recognition)

mosura 7mo ago
Right, if these countries want these laws at least ensure the verification is all done within the country in question and the data never leaves. Of course, that defeats the entire point of the exercise.
domh 7mo ago
I keep emailing my (Labour) MP about this, I suggest you do the same! I get the standard "protecting the children" response. I am not voting Labour again if this madness is still in place (or worse!) at the next GE.
- pjc50 7mo ago
  MPs are pretty bad at dealing with anything that doesn't come from the party or the newspapers. I'm donating to the Open Rights Group to care about this on my behalf. (my MP is SNP, so I benefit from not being in the two party trap)
roysting 7mo ago
Is it stupid or intentional? I believe the latter. There are many layers that these kinds of things go through before they are pushed in that manner and not in a "smart" manner that respects rights of the majority of the population. They are chasing this path for deliberate reasons, regardless of what they may be, or whether you like it or not. Ironically, they can only engage in these "stupid" things because people don't force them to not engage in "stupid things". Silence in consent in these kinds of cases.

stavros 7mo ago

[dead]

sschueller 7mo ago

The Swiss eID is open source[1] and it's usage will be limited. Any type of age verification for online service would need go to a vote and would probably loose. "Eigenverantwortung", it is the parents job to look after the kids, not the state. [1] https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch

kakacik 7mo ago
You can't just push responsibility for the kids to the parents, where is the world going? This is madness. The next thing you are going to claim kids from young age shouldn't have fully unlocked smart phones, shouldn't install any app and so on. Where is the end of this? Are you telling me parents should spend more time with kids, heck even be their role models although it is much harder compared to just giving up on them and let the glorious internet and various fashionate toxic tribes raise them? Blasphemy!!!
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- intrasight 7mo ago
  I totally agree with that sentiment but we can and should both have good parents and safe devices.
  - PeterStuer 7mo ago
    Where has a few decades of "safety" culture catering to the greater moron really brought us?
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      Seatbelts and helmets have saved countless lives
      - intrasight 7mo ago

TacticalCoder 7mo ago

> ... but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU There's more money spent in lobbyism in the EU than anywhere else in the world. Lobbyism and downright corruption: like Qatari bribing EU MEPs [1] and police finding 1 million EUR in bills hidden at a MEP's apartment (in this case a bribe to explain publicly that Qatar is a country oh-so-respectful of human rights). The EU is way more corrupt than the US and in many EU countries there's little private sector compared to the US. In France for example more than 60% of the GDP is public spending and all the big companies are state or partially state-owned or owned by people very close to the state. And as to american companies bribing EU politicians: it's nothing new. IBM and Microsoft for example are two names everybody in the business knows have been splurging money to buy influence and illegal kickbacks have always been flying. It's just the way things have always been operating. Today you can very likely add Google and Palantir etc. to the list but it's nothing new. EU politicians are whores. And cheap whores at that: investigative journalists have shown, in the past, the little amount of money that was needed to buy their votes. Most of them go into politics to extract as much taxpayers money as they can for their own benefit. They of course love to get bribes. Also to try to not get caught, EU politicians voted themselves special powers and it's very difficult for the regular police to enter official EU buildings. I know an police inspector who went and arrested a MEP for possession of child porn: it required a very long procedure, way longer than usual, and the request of special authorization allowing them to enter the EU parliament (or EU commission, don't remember which but I think it was MEP at the EP). American companies bribing EU politicians should scare you indeed: it's been ongoing since forever. > The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility Switzerland is in Europe but it's not in the EU: it's not representative of the insane corruption present in the EU institutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili

crimsoneer 7mo ago

Is there any evidence Palantir is doing any of this? Doesn't really seem like their wheelhouse?

drtgh 7mo ago
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc?rid=758249296966-23 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc... https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc?rid=553786035745-66 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc... Lobbyists having Palantir as a client: FTI Consulting Belgium, https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?rid=29896393398-67&sid=143828 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?ri...

nimbius 7mo ago

one hypothesis for why meta wants this is because AI (including its own push for it) has turned much of the internet and its social media platforms into slopfarms and clickbots that advertisers are increasingly moving away from. The real driver is as always, ad revenue. This time, advertisers want and need to know a real human is engaging the brand and Meta cannot see any other way in sight to assure this fact save for age verification. this is just the latest evolution of surveillance capitalism.

drtgh 7mo ago

Not only the US. In the updated post [1] that was deleted at Reddit [2], it is commented there are three firms confirmed operating for Meta in both EU and US jurisdictions, Firm: Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), EU Role: EUR 680K for AI Act, DMA, DSA. US Connection: APCO offices in DC; Meta VP calls them "integrated members of our Meta team". Firm: White & Case LLP, EU Role: EUR 50-100K. digital markets/services. US Connection: Lead international outside counsel, 70+ lawyer team. Firm: FTI Consulting Belgium, EU Role: EUR 10-25K. US Connection: Subsidiary of FTI Consulting Inc (NYSE: FCN, HQ Washington DC). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pulled_irs_filings_for_the_org_that/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddi... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pulled_irs_filings_for_the_org_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pul... This sounds like the mere tip of the iceberg, as it is commented that they maintain two separate networks with no overlap (their age verification lobbying goes through local specialists with no international footprint). Edit: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=516856946153-57 https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=5168569461... Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), clients for closed financial year, Jan 2024 - Dec 2024, - meta platforms ireland limited and its various subsidiaries, 50'000€ - 99'999€: EU Green Deal, EU AI Act, the European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+), online safety. - verifymy limited ( age verification business), 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act; eIDAS Regulation; Strategy for a better Internet for kids (BIK+); EU Artificial Intelligence Act; General Data Protection Regulation. - user rights gmbh, 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act.

dylan604 7mo ago

Why do you think the EU would not also jump on the bandwagon if the OS makers have already done the work to comply with US laws? It would be less work on the OS makers to make it for all users rather than trying to determine what jurisdiction the computer was being used and to know if the verification was necessary based on that.

kogasa240p 7mo ago

> The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech Switzerland will be the exception, not the rule when it comes to internet ID debauchery.

biztos 7mo ago

Probably off topic, but is the cringey wordplay between e-ID and Eid (as in Genossenschaft) intentional in Switzerland? https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e