121–130 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security recordings fall into the category if legitimate need, and have to be deleted after a short while.
How is that enforced ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't help but think people mean something else when they hear "digital ids" then what they are. Like I have a digital id from the government of the Netherlands that I use to log into their government systems to declare taxes or what not. I had an X509 certificate issued by Ukrainian government and have their app to do the same. It's bad somehow?
The problem is what follows. They will make it mandatory to use the electronic ID to do anything, resulting in total surveillance. And if you happen to land on their "bad" list (which eventually everyone will), you're locked out of life completely. No banking, no traveling, no communication with anyone, no buying food, nothing.
Not really. Government is not Big Tech. This happens with accounts of some tech companies precisely because they're private entities setting their own rules in the still wild "wild west" of the Internet. Governments set laws and processes to ensure the things you mentioned do not happen, except in very specific circumstances.
Think of it this way: being "locked out of life completely", resulting in "no banking, no traveling, no communication", etc. is not a new problem. In the off-line world we call that being sanctioned, imprisoned, deprived of personal freedoms, etc. Yes, it happens to some people, but usually for very specific reasons (called "crimes"), after a lengthy bureaucratic process (called "trial" and "sentencing"), with plenty of safeguards to catch and rectify mistakes during and after the fact (like "legal defenses", "appeals", or even "journalists"). It is not something you normally worry about.
Humanity has worked out best practices for these thing over thousands of years of various tribes and nations and governments forming, disbanding, collapsing, emerging, conquering or becoming conquered. Adding electronic IDs on top does not change the nature of the thing. So you won't get locked out of life for posting the wrong emoji in a tax report comment; that would be like being thrown to prison for drawing something on a government form - or rather, if that's even remotely possible in your country, you have much bigger problems than digital IDs, and your best move would be to emigrate somewhere sane before borders close or civil war starts.
Plenty of other things to worry about here (e.g. ID checks suddenly being required by every business, just because it's zero effort to them for some marginal KYC benefit), but getting banned from life due to ToS violation is not one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Overall, as with every digital ID thread, it would help if some of the fearmon gering commentators would read the actually EUDI specs for once in their lives Yeah I'm getting really really tired of the "crying wolf" crowd
Just because the government is not out to get you at this exact moment doesn't mean that a future government won't be. Surveillance capacity seems to be a one way ratchet.
With the way elections changed after social media became big. Govts want to have control back, like they did before. And are increasingly curbing open internet with boogeyman CP or terrorists, new fear of mass AI CP. Ultimately we'll get 2nd hand version of great firewall and social credit system. Some "liberal democracies" already have root of such systems implemented.
That kind of serves as a proof to your opinion it's a boogeyman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the government is not out to get you at this exact moment doesn't mean that a future government won't be. Surveillance capacity seems to be a one way ratchet.
What surveillance capacity? In what way does the spec build surveillance capacity?
> Real cryptographic unlinkability schemes like BBS+ or CL signatures would produce uncorrelated proofs even on reuse. This is not that. This discussion was already led ad nauseam with the Swiss eID proposal (which is supposed to be EUID compatible) and the reason why the system relies on rotating signatures instead of ZKPs is that the cryptography hardware modules in most phones don't support algorithms such as BBS+…
Have you read the spec? I have, but I don't understand how the revocation flow is supposed to be safe against collusion between issuers/governments and site owners to reveal the identity of (age verified) users.
Is it the following:
Issuer revokes the wallet of Alice and then publicly says “This ID is Alice btw” and then verifiers can check their lists to see whether any of their received signatures are revoked (in which case they must be Alice)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the proposed EU digital solutions require a Google or Apple verified phone. This makes escaping American companies difficult.
I don't think that's true, it seems to be just this specific German one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47644406
Whitelabel/demo implementation specifically pushes FOR Google Play Integrity after being explained why that's a bad idea: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic...
Via: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24452-eu-might-enforce-goog... which specifically quotes the law that should forbid such approach (Article 6(4) DMA) - so EU initiative and engineers consciously and intentionality breaking EU law in the prototype that is supposed to be replicated later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the proposed EU digital solutions require a Google or Apple verified phone. This makes escaping American companies difficult.
I don't think that's true, it seems to be just this specific German one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47644406
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just as we should disallow removing citizenship. However lots of countries do allow removing citizenship In the UK it is a political decision too. Lots of countries allow locking people out of other things (e.g. freezing bank accounts). I therefore doubt we an effectively prevent this. I do not see the problem with physical tokens. They are simple, do not create a single point of failure (if I lose my phone I still…
Yes and I find this deeply wrong - what politician would you trust with this decision? Debanking is also wrong in my view. I think we should focus on laws against things like that which lead to tyranny rather than attempting to stop progress. Cash in particular is expensive to produce/process and no longer honours the promise printed on it, it will be phased out as the transactions with it approach 0%. Cards are real…
1. They are physically separate. They are not likely to be stolen at the same time as a phone. 2. They do not require battery.
Cash has the same advantages, but even more so as it does not rely on networks at all.
If you only have phones as a means of payment what do you do if you phone is lost, stolen or out of battery? How do you even buy a new phone!?
I think phasing out cash is very short sighted. It is robust and reliable. There is a good reason the Swedish central bank recently recommended that people keep a certain amount of cash at home (1,000 SEK, equivalent to about £80/$108/94 EUR, per adult).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Overall, as with every digital ID thread, it would help if some of the fearmon gering commentators would read the actually EUDI specs for once in their lives Yeah I'm getting really really tired of the "crying wolf" crowd
To be fair to some of them, across the Atlantic the Americans are implementing similar laws in absolutely ridiculous ways. Many Americans don't even have ID (and plenty of those are reluctant to the general concept of any kind of government ID), let alone any kind of digital ID. However, their governments are pushing frankly weird and absurd ID verification laws to businesses online. Meta seems to be bankrolling lobb…