• hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Optimistically, age can be verified without giving away identity. There are cryptographic methods for doing so. And I’m sure this is how the age verification mandate will initially be sold.

    But after the populace gets used to the idea of age verification, the government can easily get rid of all the cryptography involved. “For the kids”

    • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      That’s very very optimistically. They won’t care a shit. Who understands cryptography enough to be swayed over to the bad side anyways? And those who do understand it, will most probably know that even if technically it could work, it won’t.

  • far_university1990@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    There is also a separate governance limitation. Proof of Age providers are expected to issue credentials only to applications included in a list of compliant apps maintained by the European Commission. This means that publishing the source code does not automatically guarantee that a community-built version can use the real service.

    This incompatible with GPLv3? Because pivotization not allowed anymore and this sound similar concept.

  • DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Another attack on device ownership if this leads to all-out firmware locks

  • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    It simply isn’t open source, if it does.

    The full system includes ALL necessary components to perform a real age verification.

    Mobile wallet, “identity provider” software, and all necessary hardware to run both.

    The assumption with general purpose computing machines WAS that hardware didn’t matter, that’s why open source software could succeed. If it does matter, then of course the hardware needs to be open as well.

    • narp@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The comment you got downvoted for and that you link to says: ‘graphene is ending this September’.

      You really should be waiting until September and until graphene os is actually shut down before acting as if you were correct with that statement.

      • rhpp@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        What’s worse, that comment links to the Keep Android Open movement which specifically targets Google’s sideloading restrictions and it’s already known that they don’t apply to GrapheneOS. This is the specific reasoning behind my downvote. Whether there are any other threats to GrapheneOS is irrelevant since the comment in question doesn’t mention them and is backed by a false claim instead.