They ask for ID card indeed, making it super easy to just make a copy. On top of that, your payment details are stored. You’re on camera. Etc.

Super easy to automate deanonymization. (1).

So yes, they get your identity, then promise to forget it.

That’s a worst of both worlds proposal: it makes it trivial to deanonymise people, and it doesn’t solve the replay attacks.

I gave an example in the previous post how the identity of the user could be hidden from the service.

In both your examples the government service has your full identity, then pinky promises to forget it.

Unless I’m misunderstanding something?

It would be a lot easier to get that information from the ISP.

Not quite the same, as IP addresses are shared through NAT, VPNs exist, etc. With the proposed legislation it is illegal for website operators to deliver content to known VPN ips, as they cannot confirm that the end user isn’t a EU subject.

is being vouched for by some government-approved service.

The reverse is also a necessity: the government approved service should not be allowed to know who and for what a proof of age is requested.

And because the service has to be in the EU, government-certified with regular inspections, that’s safe enough

Of course not: both intentional and unintentional leaking of this information already happens, regularly. That information should simply not be captured, at all!

Additionally, what happens to, for example, the people in Hungary(*)? If the middle man government service knows when and who is requesting proof-of-age, it’s easy to de-anonymise for example users of gay porn sites.

The 3rd party solution, as you present it, sounds terribly dangerous!

(*) Hungary as a contemporary example of a near despot leader, but more will pop up in EU over the coming years.

deleted by creator

I must not be explaining myself well.

both are supposed to receive information about the user’s age

Yes, that’s the point. They should be receiving information about age, and age only. Therefore they lack the information to detect reuse.

If they are able to detect reuse, they receive more (and personal identifying) information. Which shouldn’t be the case.

The only known way to include a nonce, without releasing identifying information to the 3rd parties, is using a DRM like chip. This results in the sovereignty and trust issues I referred to earlier.

Jekyll

from a single user

Neither 2 nor 3 should receive information about the identity of the user, making it difficult to count the volume of requests by user?

If it happens at scale, it will be flagged pretty quickly.

How? In a correct implementation, the 3rd parties only receive proof-of-age, no identity. How will re-use and sharing be detected?

merely polling googles hardware based stuff

I understand. In the context of digital sovereignty, even if the linked shitty implementation is discarded (as it should be), every correct implementation will require magic DRM-like chip. This chip will be made by a US or Asian manufacturer, as the EU has no manufacturing.

If it is about hiding some data handled by the app, that will be instantly extracted.

Look at the design of DRM chips. They bake the key into hardware. Some keys have been leaked, I think playstation 2 is an example, but typically by a source inside the company.

It’s that “whatever way” that is difficult. This proposal merely shifts the problem: now the login to that 3rd party can be shared, and age verification subverted.

And the EU for their stupid fucking censorship

You should read more international news if you think either the EU or US is “the worst place”. Somalia for example has been in civil war since the 1980s.

To avoid people from simply copying the “age proof” and having others reuse it, a nonce/private key combo is needed. To protect that key a DRM style locked down device is necessary. Conveniently removing your ability to know what your device is doing, just a “trust us”.

Seeing the EU doesn’t make any popular hardware, their plan will always rely on either Asian or US manufacturers implementing the black-box “safety” chip.

Why is the government so obsessed with parenting and nannying the citizens?

I think it’s because people from outside the traditional political families are getting popular votes.

For the established politicians, blaming “the internet” and building a supressing censorship machine is easier than looking in the mirror and seeing where the discontent comes from.

That’s a subject many never talk about: it assumes we (1) have morality all figured out and (2) it’s the same for everyone, everywhere.

How would you solve replay attacks? Like a million people, of age or not, sharing the same key?

Not at all. But that’s intentional, maybe?

Waauw, you really are unsympathetic.

Have you ever looked at how age rating systems work?

Good example: they are already used for example to censor the idea of non-heterosexual relationships (1). Don’t let them expand it, or give them even more tools, please.

Your stated goals already are achievable with existing tools.