So, parental controls now how much exactly if the person using it is the patent?

And again, you didn’t read anything about the EUID project. I know this because the data protection rules for the EUID are fucking insane. The reason why the project in question (age verification) exists, so user can verify their age WITHOUT providing any details about who they are to online services

It is unbelievable, no glue about what this piece of software is who wrote it, for what, what are the legal grounds, but spitting bullshit, yes nice!

I will write a more detailed post about the whole issue, where things must be changed, how, and the impact and false assumptions.

But I will end this conversation here, because it just makes no sense. You lack the knowledge to provide anything useful to such a discussion

What about Steam, Amazon, …?

Yes, and EVERYTHING you buy from stream you buy from the same domain. Everything you buy from Amazon, you buy from the same domain.

Can you explain to me how a DNS filter knows if the user visits reddit for example to read gaming news or watch porn?

There is no app. Read the readme from the beginning. Even cited it here. Show me the he app in the app stores! YOU CAN’T!

THIS IS A REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION NOT AN PRODUCTION READY APP! THIS IS EXPLICITLY STATE ON THE PROJECT README!

You are absolutely right about end-to-end encryption and VPN. Essentially everything that has to do work law enforcement.

End we should focus on those topics. They are political issues and have lasting consequences. That a reference implementation will require Google APIs in the future is not an issue worth rageing about beyond “That is a bad example and violates EU law”.

Wtf are you now talking about? The politicians already defined the digital rights act.

And politicians don’t write software.

I know this issue, yes? And now?

Parental control in routers are based on DNS blacklist. That works only for full websites. What about steam, Netflix, online shops?

We have Linux, Mac, Windows, Android,…

We have kids that know more about PC’s then parents.

Your suggestion can only work with systems that are heavily locked down and always controlled by the parents.

That is not the world in that we live. “Just 3 buttons” is a very naive idea to a very complex problem

But feel free, design a 3 button system, including client/server communication and more. Than we can talk about it

So, if a 12 year old appears on the door of a strip club, we don’t check for his ID, we let him in because, after all, it’s a parent topic and if the parents let the boy out, he can for sure visit a strip club, right?

Read the ducking docs

The Age Verification (AV) android app is part of the Age Verification Solution Toolbox and serves as a component that can be used by memberstates, if necessary, to develop a national solution and build upon the building blocks of the toolbox. […] This is an initial version of the software, developed solely for the purpose of demonstrating the business flow of the solution. It is not intended for production use, and does not yet include the full set of functional, security, or integration features required for a live deployment.

Like what? Dude! There is no app you’re can install, so there’s no requirement for Google APIs.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about, what the issue is, and why the scope of the project matters.

Let me try to summarize this:

EU policies require the ability to verify COUNTRY SPECIFIC implementations to be verifiable. The reference implementation linked above uses a Google API for it.

Countries, that implement the actual apps are free to offer other verification methods then the Google API.

Italy has an app currently, and this app requires this stupid Google API, yes, but that is not the above project.

The websites will never communicate with the play services! They communicate with the APIs of the authorities issuing the state ID’s. The App must be verifiable to protect the user! We have a state ID app in Germany. It is open source and I compiled it for my Linux desktop and graphene OS based phones. Guess what, yeah, it works.

What many are missing here: the purpose of the verification and the actual authentication workflow.

Also, let me just cite the readme of the project:

This is an initial version of the software, developed solely for the purpose of demonstrating the business flow of the solution. It is not intended for production use, and does not yet include the full set of functional, security, or integration features required for a live deployment.

But we are all going crazy because some minimal example code relays on Google APIs …

Please stop pushing such utterly wrong and confusing bullshit.

Why must they have installed that? For what if there is no app?

Again, this is not an official app. It is a reference implementation.

You can not, and will never be able to, download this app from the App store.

So, let me summarize this, maybe i miss something:

a) This is a Module/Reference Implementation not the finished app b) It is in the earliest stages of development c) it is opensource, someone could provide alternate means for device/app verification via MR d) There is no mention about “THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE WILL DO IT”, that part is a straight out lie!

Nothing prevents nations to implement other verification methods the googles API.

So, what are we raging about here? People insulting developers for doing their work? People using an issue tracker like twitter? People, that do not read properly?

Yes, the italian implementation already is tied to google, and there should be some push back, but that is NOT the fault of this project.