Superficial points you are promotinh, that don't hold up to scrutiny themselves.
Most noticeably, you are again claiming linkability in systems that were specifically designed not to have linkability.
The EFFs crusade against Self-sovereign Identity becomes more and more desperate.
Ok, det giver jo sådan set god mening.
Men som sædvanlig er motivfortolkningen skruet helt op på 11, når det kommer til alt Israel foretager sig.
Det internationale samfund findes ikke mere, Martin.
Og det er FN lidt selv skyld i, for bare at sige det, som det er. FN's punkter er jo f.eks. noget man kan sige om alle krigszoner.
Og Hvad betyder det sidste punkt egentlig? At FN tror på liv før undfangelsen?
You are anonymous while doing age verification, if done according to eIDAS 2.0.
I was wondering if anyone with knowledge of PETs from the @eff.org would be willing to discuss the topic of age verification?
@eff.org has shifted into a partisan political organization and is losing its influence in debates on Privacy-Preserving Technologies.
Yes, you are.
Has zero to do with Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Explain the abuse towards a black and a white man being pulled over
That kind of silly argument does no good. Really. This is a tech debate, and you should keep it as such.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs don't give a shit about your skin color, shoe size or hair color
What does that have to do with anything?
No, you fail to understand how Zero-Knowledge Proofs operate.
The police officers ASKS your phone to prove you have a valid drivers license. Your phone prompts for your consent, and ANSWERS by creating a ZKP on the fly, fulfilling the parameters of the question.
Fine. Then don't.
But when you then are required to prove that you are allowed to drive, you must use some other means, that are much more disclosing than a ZKP is.
Again, this is nothing but the same black/white fallacies really.
"What about people with X,Y,Z" ??
People without drivers licenses can't drive cars either. People without phones can't make calls. Get over it.
Look at the tech for what it is, and then improve on it.
I don't care about Age Verification outside EU, because it is EU legislation.
But Verifiable Credentials will still be the rails of online interactions outside Europe. It's a protocol. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad.
The @eff.org should go here: internetidentityworkshop.com
I mean it. Go to that unconference. Then we can talk.
Ok, not sure it was you, who lived in California.
Regardless, you are making this into a black/white fallacy, and by doing so, you are standing in way of a privacy revolution not seen since PGP in 1991.
How about you research a bit yourself, besides not throwing in fallacies like "what about people without ID!" and "what if people share the ID!"
In California, where you live, you have mDLs, that your state is already issuing, and that Google makes ZKPs on with your phone.
Interesting, but not applicable.
Obtaining a primary credential is not an insurmountable obstacle. In fact, that is PRECISELY what EUIDW attempt - being a primary credentials, that all ZKP credentials derive from.
The other points in there have also been addressed by the SSI community.
That is precisely what the EUIDW is about. Having interoperability between Member States, and even abroad, by using W3C Verifiable Credentials and related protocols recently ratified under the W3C
Wake up
If you want to go analogue/anarchist/libertarian, fine. Go ahead
eIDs have existed throughout EU member states for years. Past 10 years in Denmark, and it's not rocket science for the Danish citizens - including my grandmother - , even if it's hard for the EFF.
You're saying phones aren't a consumer solution?
Ok. So if you're not against restricting minors, then why do you conflate that with censorship of adults?
First, can we establish if you're against age restricting anything for kids, like alcohol?
Not if you're a kid.
You reply, and then block me?
Guess you took my advice, and got out.
@eff.org should lift the debate to talk about the points in this article (in Danish, but can be translated).
It was written precisely because our privacy experts, such as you fine people here - have failed us.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/alders...
I read that already, thank you.
The concerns in there are somewhat valid, as the devil is in the details regarding linkability and revocation. And THOSE details should be the debate.
Get into the game, or get out.
Whether or not one should adhere to laws and regulations, is an entirely different debate. This is not a censorship debate. You are not being censored, just as you aren't being subjected to censorship when entering a nightclub.
