9 ms·

> EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification EUDI wallets are connected to your government issued ID. There is no "highly invasive age verif

by hiciu 7mo ago

> EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification EUDI wallets are connected to your government issued ID. There is no "highly invasive age verification". We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signed by the government. You get it with the salts. When you want to prove you are 18+ you include salt for the "is aged over 18" claim, and the signed document with all the salts and the other side can validate if the document is signed and if your claim matches the document. No face scanning, no driver license uploading to god-knows-where, no anything. > to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months This is the fallback mechanism. You are supposed to use bbs+ signatures that are zero knowledge, are computed on the device and so on. It is supposed to provide the "unlinkability". I don't feel competent enough to explain how those work. > jailbreaking / "prevent tampering" This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. > You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked This is not true, the law requires core apps to be opensource. Polish EUDI wallet has been even decompiled by a youtuber to compare it with sources and check if the rumors about spying are true. So you can check yourself if the app tracks you. Also we can't have a meaningful discussion without expanding on definition of "tracking". Can the site owner track you when you verify if you are 18+? Not really, each token is unique, there should be no correlation here. Can the government track you? No, not alone. Can the site owner and the government collude to track you? Yes they can! Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. Can they lie? Sure. Can the site owner and the government collude to track you if you are using bbs+? No. Math says no. Can they lie if you are using bbs+? Math says no.

EmbarrassedHelp 7mo ago
> This is not true, the law requires core apps to be opensource. Polish EUDI wallet has been even decompiled by a youtuber to compare it with sources and check if the rumors about spying are true. So you can check yourself if the app tracks you. The "open source" apps connect to proprietary backends run by a third party that you have to blindly trust. If EUDI wallets were truly open source and free from blindly trusting any authority, then you could simply remove that requirement and issue your own tokens without the use of potentially malicious third party.
- hiciu 7mo ago
  > issue your own tokens I mean, you can. It's like with TLS certificates. The standard is there. The code is there. You can issue your own. The question is, who will trust you?
  - summm 7mo ago
    It is not at all like TLS. With TLS you at least can get your own certificate signed by an official CA, and use that private key on whatever system you want.
    - hiciu 7mo ago
      It is literally TLS in a trench coat with some json sprinkled on top. Where I think we are not in agreement the question of "who to trust" and "for what purposes". Are you going to trust me when I tell you that I'm over 18 if I provide you with the document signed by my cousin, Honest Ahmed? Are you going to trust me when I show you the document signed by my government? (this is the trick question, you don't have a choice, law says you must; there's a list of who you need to trust and for what purposes; like a certificate root store in your browser)
      - summm 7mo ago
        You forgot to mention the additional remote attestation shackles you put on that trenchcoat. Note that I - as opposed to the posts parent - used an official trusted CA as an example. TLS: I see your ID with some governments signature in your hand, I trust you to be you. EUDI: I see a note you wrote and I see some signed documents that you have just been to the government brain scanner, which attests you are not faking that note, and as a nice side effect the scanner scans other things in your brain, e.g. that you watch every advert diligently, send your current location regularly to your local police office and other things. The problem is you are not creating a government issued single purpose device but you are confiscating something many user experience as a brain extension to be under the government's control as a whole.
      - 7mo ago
summm 7mo ago
> jailbreaking / "prevent tampering" Now your EU government requires you to have an unmodified Google or Apple device to use any age restricted services. Cementing the US mobile OS duopoly and locking out any free systems and desktop etc. forever. Any governmental service taking part in this is a violation of civil rights and even if you don't care about those, maybe you care about digital sovereignty. This is so lightly handwaved away, almost as if attention needs to be drawn away. By the looks of this I'd say the end of general computing might be the actual goal, and all the age verification is just yet another "think of the children" pretense?
- hiciu 7mo ago
  I totally agree that one of the biggest vulnerabilities in EU digital ID scheme are US corporations :).
  - summm 7mo ago
    At least that establishes that you don't care about civil rights :|
  - ori_b 7mo ago
    *corporations in general
donmcronald 7mo ago
> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signed by the government. If the "18+ claim" can't be linked to your identity and doesn't have any rate limits, someone can set up a token-as-a-service to sell tokens on the black market. > Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. > Can the site owner and the government collude to track you if you are using bbs+? No. Math says no. How does the math say no? Big tech companies already log absolutely everything. What's going to stop the government from keeping all the salts they're issuing and then mandating that site operators add the salts to their existing logs? > Can they lie? Sure. Well, they've lied to us over and over when it comes to surveillance, so I think at this point it's reasonable to assume they're lying unless it's technically impossible. Where's the in-person key verification that used to be in Whatsapp? How do the authorities get notified when someone makes a poorly thought out joke using Snapchat private messages before getting on a plane? Why is there a war on end-to-end encryption? We're going to pay a fortune for these supposed zero knowledge systems and that's what it's about. Select companies are going to get paid to issue tokens and the scale is going to create a few new billionaires. The people in charge are going to gain a ton of power when they betray everyone and disenfranchise us.
- hiciu 7mo ago
  > someone can set up a token-as-a-service to sell tokens on the black market They can! Singing requires either PIN or finger on the fingerprint, and signed "proof" is valid for like 60 seconds. This whole end-to-end attestation with play integrity is supposed to make setting up token-as-a-service things impractical. > What's going to stop the government from keeping all the salts they're issuing and then mandating that site operators add the salts to their existing logs? > How does the math say no BBS+ signatures. Hashes you receive from the government and hashes you send to the site operator are different and not correlated.
  - 7mo ago
andrepd 7mo ago
Great comment all around but > jailbreaking / "prevent tampering" > This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. This is unacceptable. So much talk about independence from the US, you simply cannot make it a hard requirement to use the duopoly to be a citizen (as if it wasn't a quasi-hard requirement already)!
- spaqin 7mo ago
  Funny how they just handwave it like it's a totally normal thing, like the insane situation with banking apps. Most people don't care as they run with whatever's available without modification, but we still should fight for the right to run the code we want on devices we own.
  - theodric 7mo ago
    Consider the car analogy: if you want to drive on public roads, you need to drive an attested, unmodified vehicle that complies with the relevant regulations. If you want to play around and modify the car, that's fine, but then you don't get to use it around other people. You're also not allowed to buy some random, unknown Chinese or Indian car and drive it on the road. People already accept this when framed as a safety issue. I suspect they care more about their cars than their phones, and won't care about the requirements on the phone anyway because they're not planning to modify it, and as long as WhatsApp and Instagram keep letting them exchange shopping list additions and pictures of vacation cocktails, then what's the problem? To be clear, I'm not in favor of a participation-in-society ban for jailbreaking your phone, but there's already precedent for it.
    - schroeding 7mo ago
      The analogy is a bit shaky IMO, as you can certify individual, heavily modified, foreign or even self-built cars in EU member states. For cars, the local certification authority themselves decides what is road-worthy or not, not VW et al. You can add third party parts without the manufacturers consent. This is not the case for Android or iOS attestation, you're pretty much at the mercy of the foreign manufacturer and their local laws.
Hizonner 7mo ago
> Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. That is not zero knowledge. Given that actual zero-knowledge systems are well understood, the only reason to deploy a system that allows that would be if you planned to abuse it.
- dcow 7mo ago
  What is your definition of zero knowledge?
  - cwillu 7mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
    - dcow 7mo ago
      By this definition bbs+ signatures are ZK.
  - nullsanity 7mo ago
    The impossibly high bar they set "Perfect" at in order to make it the enemy of good, and fight against any progress being made to keep children out of adult spaces. That being said, it's my personal opinion that I'd love to simply have my device store a token and send it to any site when requested. I'd then like those sites to give me toggles to remove all non-verified content - and therefore my internet experience could be sans-juvenile squeakers.
  - randunel 7mo ago
    Zero knowledge in such a system requires a minimum of 3 independent parties. There are quite a few solutions out there, I think the most developed ones are online voting systems, because tracking and de duplication is essential.
girvo 7mo ago
> It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. I can use my banking services through the web. Codifying the Google/Apple monopoly in law is gross.
- techpression 7mo ago
  In the context of world politics and the hunt for sovereign hosting etc it also seems incredibly weird to put all of EUs identity handling in the hands of two American companies. For clarity, the US could over night make all European digital wallets nonfunctional by requiring app stores to remove them and have them uninstalled remotely (iirc there is such a feature but it’s very rarely used). Likely? No, still a very strange thing to put into law though.
- egorfine 7mo ago
  > I can use my banking services through the web. Not for much longer. Stealing your data on mobile device is way too lucrative for the banks to pass on. All while pretending it's done for security.
  - girvo 7mo ago
    Sadly true, while scammers run rampant regardless. It’s depressing to watch everything get worse.
- wongarsu 7mo ago
  Many banks have gone the way of requiring 2FA on an unrooted phone, but giving you a way out by also offering you 2FA via smartcard (using a smartcard reader and a bank-issued card). I suspect a similar thing could be done here, with the smartcard providing the trusted hardware/secure element?
txrx0000 7mo ago
> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign You've already lost. You're at the government's mercy. They can simply refuse to sign. "Mr. John Smith, we noticed you've published some poorly-worded comments online. Why are you locked out of your account, you say? Oh, that's just an unfortunate technical issue with our signing system, happens all the time. Anyway, this is a friendly reminder for you to improve your online etiquette. Have a nice day."
- MadxX79 7mo ago
  There's really two cases here. You live in a democracy? YES) the violation you describe is verifiable to a journalist. You publish story, and you keep the government accountable. NO) Why are you even discussing if age verification is a good idea or not, you freak. It's not really up to you anyway. Go fix your country first.
  - echelon 7mo ago
    Do you trust today's democracy to be a democracy tomorrow? Never. Cede. Ground. You'll never get it back, and one day the rights will be gone.
    - XorNot 7mo ago
      Age verification in Australia had like 70% popularity. That is an astounding consensus in a system which regularly decides elections by 51%. You're not getting mandated from up high: it is democratically enormously popular to do this.
      - dns_snek 7mo ago
        That's a fallacy. You don't have any evidence to support the claim that this system of age verification is popular and more importantly, whether it would remain popular if people had a full understanding of how it worked and how it can be abused. It might be popular to have age verification conceptually and only as long as it's only used "as advertised", which is not the same thing. This is one of the biggest issues of democracy. As long as your propaganda machine is strong enough (and anti-privacy propaganda is one of the strongest) you can pass just about anything and pretend that society put on the shackles of surveillance and coercive control voluntarily. People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.
11mariom 7mo ago
> Can the site owner and the government collude to track you? Yes they can! Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves. Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because". And the best part… Age verification will not solve "children problem". I think it's parents problem to take care of their children, AV will be pretty easy to bypass - kid will just borrow ID for a moment and… voila! Govts (or some people) are creating problem and solution that do not exists. I do not like way internet went, I do not like more way it's headed now.
- irjustin 7mo ago
  I'll bite. > It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves. > Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because". Is this even actually possible? If you want any sort of identity verification you HAVE to trust someone, whether age or full ID. Literally impossible. Zero trust systems in society don't work. If you don't care "who" then yes, zero trust is just fine... but then what's the point of "age verification"?
  - kmijyiyxfbklao 7mo ago
    The whole point is that mandating websites to require age verification is more authoritarian than people are pretending it is.
    - irjustin 7mo ago
      I was more responding to the part about not trusting your own gov cuz how do you build a system where you don't trust a central authority when identity is required. I don't think it's possible.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
deaux 7mo ago
> This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. Most banking apps run on GrapheneOS, will this? Nearly all EU banking websites run on Firefox on Linux, will this? Why did you not quote the App Store/Google Play Services part, which is much worse? > There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. I'm sure this will be as diligently carried out as GDPR enforcement. [0]. [0] https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland
lejalv 7mo ago
> This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. Except the state is not a bank, of which there are many. The state is not optional, and trusting an American company with, of all things, the digital precondition for social existence, is suicidal.
- inigyou 7mo ago
  [dead]
Confiks 7mo ago
> This is the fallback mechanism. You are supposed to use bbs+ signatures that are zero knowledge, are computed on the device and so on. You're mistaken. SD-JWT with linkable ECDSA signature is the main mechanism. An unlinkable signature scheme is being discussed on the fringes of the EUDI-project (whether it be BBS+ or Longfellow) and very bare-bones support for Longfellow has been added to the reference wallet a month ago. However the Implementing Acts have no support for such a mechanism yet, and most member states will only implement ECDSA based mechanisms (SD-JWT and ISO 18013) for the foreseeable future. It's therefore very likely the EUDI wallet and/or a age verification solutions will launch with issuer linkable ("easily trackable") signatures. See also this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45363275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45363275

by hiciu 7mo ago

EmbarrassedHelp 7mo ago

> This is not true, the law requires core apps to be opensource. Polish EUDI wallet has been even decompiled by a youtuber to compare it with sources and check if the rumors about spying are true. So you can check yourself if the app tracks you. The "open source" apps connect to proprietary backends run by a third party that you have to blindly trust. If EUDI wallets were truly open source and free from blindly trusting any authority, then you could simply remove that requirement and issue your own tokens without the use of potentially malicious third party.

hiciu 7mo ago
> issue your own tokens I mean, you can. It's like with TLS certificates. The standard is there. The code is there. You can issue your own. The question is, who will trust you?
- summm 7mo ago
  It is not at all like TLS. With TLS you at least can get your own certificate signed by an official CA, and use that private key on whatever system you want.
  - hiciu 7mo ago
    It is literally TLS in a trench coat with some json sprinkled on top. Where I think we are not in agreement the question of "who to trust" and "for what purposes". Are you going to trust me when I tell you that I'm over 18 if I provide you with the document signed by my cousin, Honest Ahmed? Are you going to trust me when I show you the document signed by my government? (this is the trick question, you don't have a choice, law says you must; there's a list of who you need to trust and for what purposes; like a certificate root store in your browser)
    - summm 7mo ago
      You forgot to mention the additional remote attestation shackles you put on that trenchcoat. Note that I - as opposed to the posts parent - used an official trusted CA as an example. TLS: I see your ID with some governments signature in your hand, I trust you to be you. EUDI: I see a note you wrote and I see some signed documents that you have just been to the government brain scanner, which attests you are not faking that note, and as a nice side effect the scanner scans other things in your brain, e.g. that you watch every advert diligently, send your current location regularly to your local police office and other things. The problem is you are not creating a government issued single purpose device but you are confiscating something many user experience as a brain extension to be under the government's control as a whole.
    - 7mo ago

summm 7mo ago

> jailbreaking / "prevent tampering" Now your EU government requires you to have an unmodified Google or Apple device to use any age restricted services. Cementing the US mobile OS duopoly and locking out any free systems and desktop etc. forever. Any governmental service taking part in this is a violation of civil rights and even if you don't care about those, maybe you care about digital sovereignty. This is so lightly handwaved away, almost as if attention needs to be drawn away. By the looks of this I'd say the end of general computing might be the actual goal, and all the age verification is just yet another "think of the children" pretense?

hiciu 7mo ago
I totally agree that one of the biggest vulnerabilities in EU digital ID scheme are US corporations :).
- summm 7mo ago
  At least that establishes that you don't care about civil rights :|
- ori_b 7mo ago
  *corporations in general

donmcronald 7mo ago

> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signed by the government. If the "18+ claim" can't be linked to your identity and doesn't have any rate limits, someone can set up a token-as-a-service to sell tokens on the black market. > Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. > Can the site owner and the government collude to track you if you are using bbs+? No. Math says no. How does the math say no? Big tech companies already log absolutely everything. What's going to stop the government from keeping all the salts they're issuing and then mandating that site operators add the salts to their existing logs? > Can they lie? Sure. Well, they've lied to us over and over when it comes to surveillance, so I think at this point it's reasonable to assume they're lying unless it's technically impossible. Where's the in-person key verification that used to be in Whatsapp? How do the authorities get notified when someone makes a poorly thought out joke using Snapchat private messages before getting on a plane? Why is there a war on end-to-end encryption? We're going to pay a fortune for these supposed zero knowledge systems and that's what it's about. Select companies are going to get paid to issue tokens and the scale is going to create a few new billionaires. The people in charge are going to gain a ton of power when they betray everyone and disenfranchise us.

hiciu 7mo ago
> someone can set up a token-as-a-service to sell tokens on the black market They can! Singing requires either PIN or finger on the fingerprint, and signed "proof" is valid for like 60 seconds. This whole end-to-end attestation with play integrity is supposed to make setting up token-as-a-service things impractical. > What's going to stop the government from keeping all the salts they're issuing and then mandating that site operators add the salts to their existing logs? > How does the math say no BBS+ signatures. Hashes you receive from the government and hashes you send to the site operator are different and not correlated.
- 7mo ago

andrepd 7mo ago

Great comment all around but > jailbreaking / "prevent tampering" > This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. This is unacceptable. So much talk about independence from the US, you simply cannot make it a hard requirement to use the duopoly to be a citizen (as if it wasn't a quasi-hard requirement already)!

spaqin 7mo ago
Funny how they just handwave it like it's a totally normal thing, like the insane situation with banking apps. Most people don't care as they run with whatever's available without modification, but we still should fight for the right to run the code we want on devices we own.
- theodric 7mo ago
  Consider the car analogy: if you want to drive on public roads, you need to drive an attested, unmodified vehicle that complies with the relevant regulations. If you want to play around and modify the car, that's fine, but then you don't get to use it around other people. You're also not allowed to buy some random, unknown Chinese or Indian car and drive it on the road. People already accept this when framed as a safety issue. I suspect they care more about their cars than their phones, and won't care about the requirements on the phone anyway because they're not planning to modify it, and as long as WhatsApp and Instagram keep letting them exchange shopping list additions and pictures of vacation cocktails, then what's the problem? To be clear, I'm not in favor of a participation-in-society ban for jailbreaking your phone, but there's already precedent for it.
  - schroeding 7mo ago
    The analogy is a bit shaky IMO, as you can certify individual, heavily modified, foreign or even self-built cars in EU member states. For cars, the local certification authority themselves decides what is road-worthy or not, not VW et al. You can add third party parts without the manufacturers consent. This is not the case for Android or iOS attestation, you're pretty much at the mercy of the foreign manufacturer and their local laws.

Hizonner 7mo ago

> Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. That is not zero knowledge. Given that actual zero-knowledge systems are well understood, the only reason to deploy a system that allows that would be if you planned to abuse it.

dcow 7mo ago
What is your definition of zero knowledge?
- cwillu 7mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
  - dcow 7mo ago
    By this definition bbs+ signatures are ZK.
- nullsanity 7mo ago
  The impossibly high bar they set "Perfect" at in order to make it the enemy of good, and fight against any progress being made to keep children out of adult spaces. That being said, it's my personal opinion that I'd love to simply have my device store a token and send it to any site when requested. I'd then like those sites to give me toggles to remove all non-verified content - and therefore my internet experience could be sans-juvenile squeakers.
- randunel 7mo ago
  Zero knowledge in such a system requires a minimum of 3 independent parties. There are quite a few solutions out there, I think the most developed ones are online voting systems, because tracking and de duplication is essential.

girvo 7mo ago

> It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. I can use my banking services through the web. Codifying the Google/Apple monopoly in law is gross.

techpression 7mo ago
In the context of world politics and the hunt for sovereign hosting etc it also seems incredibly weird to put all of EUs identity handling in the hands of two American companies. For clarity, the US could over night make all European digital wallets nonfunctional by requiring app stores to remove them and have them uninstalled remotely (iirc there is such a feature but it’s very rarely used). Likely? No, still a very strange thing to put into law though.
egorfine 7mo ago
> I can use my banking services through the web. Not for much longer. Stealing your data on mobile device is way too lucrative for the banks to pass on. All while pretending it's done for security.
- girvo 7mo ago
  Sadly true, while scammers run rampant regardless. It’s depressing to watch everything get worse.
wongarsu 7mo ago
Many banks have gone the way of requiring 2FA on an unrooted phone, but giving you a way out by also offering you 2FA via smartcard (using a smartcard reader and a bank-issued card). I suspect a similar thing could be done here, with the smartcard providing the trusted hardware/secure element?

txrx0000 7mo ago

> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign You've already lost. You're at the government's mercy. They can simply refuse to sign. "Mr. John Smith, we noticed you've published some poorly-worded comments online. Why are you locked out of your account, you say? Oh, that's just an unfortunate technical issue with our signing system, happens all the time. Anyway, this is a friendly reminder for you to improve your online etiquette. Have a nice day."

MadxX79 7mo ago
There's really two cases here. You live in a democracy? YES) the violation you describe is verifiable to a journalist. You publish story, and you keep the government accountable. NO) Why are you even discussing if age verification is a good idea or not, you freak. It's not really up to you anyway. Go fix your country first.
- echelon 7mo ago
  Do you trust today's democracy to be a democracy tomorrow? Never. Cede. Ground. You'll never get it back, and one day the rights will be gone.
  - XorNot 7mo ago
    Age verification in Australia had like 70% popularity. That is an astounding consensus in a system which regularly decides elections by 51%. You're not getting mandated from up high: it is democratically enormously popular to do this.
    - dns_snek 7mo ago
      That's a fallacy. You don't have any evidence to support the claim that this system of age verification is popular and more importantly, whether it would remain popular if people had a full understanding of how it worked and how it can be abused. It might be popular to have age verification conceptually and only as long as it's only used "as advertised", which is not the same thing. This is one of the biggest issues of democracy. As long as your propaganda machine is strong enough (and anti-privacy propaganda is one of the strongest) you can pass just about anything and pretend that society put on the shackles of surveillance and coercive control voluntarily. People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.

11mariom 7mo ago

> Can the site owner and the government collude to track you? Yes they can! Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves. Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because". And the best part… Age verification will not solve "children problem". I think it's parents problem to take care of their children, AV will be pretty easy to bypass - kid will just borrow ID for a moment and… voila! Govts (or some people) are creating problem and solution that do not exists. I do not like way internet went, I do not like more way it's headed now.

irjustin 7mo ago
I'll bite. > It's not zero knowledge for me then. Also - if there is ANY possibility to track anyone. And/or centrally mark someone "nonverified" then it makes more problems than solves. > Even if I trust my govt (no way), even if it'd be fully ZK with no way to track anyone… still govt would have a way to just block some individual "because". Is this even actually possible? If you want any sort of identity verification you HAVE to trust someone, whether age or full ID. Literally impossible. Zero trust systems in society don't work. If you don't care "who" then yes, zero trust is just fine... but then what's the point of "age verification"?
- kmijyiyxfbklao 7mo ago
  The whole point is that mandating websites to require age verification is more authoritarian than people are pretending it is.
  - irjustin 7mo ago
    I was more responding to the part about not trusting your own gov cuz how do you build a system where you don't trust a central authority when identity is required. I don't think it's possible.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

deaux 7mo ago

> This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. Most banking apps run on GrapheneOS, will this? Nearly all EU banking websites run on Firefox on Linux, will this? Why did you not quote the App Store/Google Play Services part, which is much worse? > There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued. I'm sure this will be as diligently carried out as GDPR enforcement. [0]. [0] https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland

lejalv 7mo ago

> This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require. Except the state is not a bank, of which there are many. The state is not optional, and trusting an American company with, of all things, the digital precondition for social existence, is suicidal.

inigyou 7mo ago
[dead]

Confiks 7mo ago

> This is the fallback mechanism. You are supposed to use bbs+ signatures that are zero knowledge, are computed on the device and so on. You're mistaken. SD-JWT with linkable ECDSA signature is the main mechanism. An unlinkable signature scheme is being discussed on the fringes of the EUDI-project (whether it be BBS+ or Longfellow) and very bare-bones support for Longfellow has been added to the reference wallet a month ago. However the Implementing Acts have no support for such a mechanism yet, and most member states will only implement ECDSA based mechanisms (SD-JWT and ISO 18013) for the foreseeable future. It's therefore very likely the EUDI wallet and/or a age verification solutions will launch with issuer linkable ("easily trackable") signatures. See also this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45363275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45363275