I agree wholeheartedly with the argument raised in this github issue, but I think people are wrong to be skeptical about the concept of a government-issued age verification app.
Thing is, the status quo is absolutely worse. My 13yo son likes making Roblox games. Suddenly, some months ago, Roblox made a change where you’re not allowed to share your games with friends unless you do “age verification”, apparently in some misguided bid to beat the pedos. In Roblox’ case, this means sharing your 3D likeness with some sketchy American business who pinky promises to delete said data after. I don’t want random American tech companies to have my kids’ biometric info like that, able to sell it to whoever asks. Nor my passport or anything like that.
I’d much prefer a government supplied app, that’s guaranteed to protect my privacy, and has no business incentive to sell my data, where I can see what data about me (or my son) is shared with Roblox or whichever sleazy business wants it.
Obviously this only makes sense if the government is less sleazy than the average American tech business, but for all its faults, I think that currently holds for the EU (and most of its member countries). There’s plenty precedent of EU governments doing privacy-conscious apps right (the Dutch covid tracking app comes to mind).
Government issued versus corporate issued age verification is a false dichotomy. There are other options, such as refusing games that require them. (Yes, we do have a teen, and yes we did exactly that with Roblox.)
Pretending that those options are equal is a false dichotomy. Not participating is an option up to a point, and then it is increasingly limiting all other options.
This is generally my opinion, and goodness it's swung around quite a bit. This entire debate feels like it should be solved by adequate parental controls.
To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision. (Maybe a lab monitor that can roam the room and see screens?) And for homework, don't assume the kid has internet access, because that is the parent's choice, and they may well not. On the flip side, if the parent trusts their kid with that access, or intends for them to learn through real world experience, let them. That should not be the state's decision.
The problem of course is that this idea in my head is a pipe dream. Schools seem to be well onboard with digital coursework, presumably for efficiency reasons? Unclear. I'm not sure what a more practical middle ground actually looks like.
You can (and should) be mad at the government and at Roblox at the same time.
Also, don't use Roblox, you can freely share games made with PICO-8, Löve, Godot, Rpgmaker, Game maker and the like, no need to go to the hell scape that is Roblox and its dark patern and locked down ecosystem.
None of the engines you mentioned are nearly as approachable as roblox when it comes to making a 3D game with little programming or art skills.
Don't get me wrong. I agree roblox is a very shady operation, but that does not erase the fact that their platform is unmatched when it comes to letting kids make games.
There also Luanti, the new name of MineTest, which is closer to the Roblox experience (in the sense that there already a playable game there, and creating new stuff is closing to modding than to game making).
The Roblox experience also includes a huge existing player base who may come and play your game without having to install anything new on their machines. I'd say this social factor actually matters a lot for Roblox where many if not most games are multiplayer.
The only thing close is minecraft, which from what I heard already has similar restrictions on in game chat, plus other shady maneuvers from Microsoft.
Of course Roblox have more player, but does your child really need millions of players?
It's the same network effect with other megacorp, we could argue the same about X/Instagram/Mastodon, the question could be changed to:
Do you want your children to be groomed to use closed source ecosystem from shady companies or do you prefer they gain experience in using relatively open ecosystem ?
Luanti let you make multiplayer games/mods too.
For Minecraft there way to play outside of Microsoft sanctioned versions and servers.
> Of course Roblox have more player, but does your child really need millions of players?
Nobody uses platforms because they are are looking to exercise billions of options. The point is easy commonality. You sit next to a kid, and, what do you know, they are into Roblox too. Cool. Wanna play?
The "app" could be a good solution, if it didn't require attested Android or iOS. It could, for example, have me plug my ID chip into my GNU/Linux system and expose it with a standard protocol. That would be no problem. The problem is that they do not want such a way.
In any case, I think that age gating would not be needed if the platforms were regulated to remove addictive recommendation algorithms.
Funny you use Netherlands as a good example, considering that famously, their existing unusually thorough registry was super helpful for the Nazis rounding up jews later.
I don't think it's Godwin's Law when you are so spot on, exactly describing the worst case.
Additionally there was a leak of the personal information of covid patients, the official tracking app was not affected as far as I can tell.
However even if the app is secure the storage and handling of the information is a different matter and it has been shown that care is not always taken.
Why would an age verification app need to know your ethnicity/religion?
Governments likely already know your name, age, place of birth, so having an app with a standard API for verifying users isn't giving the government additional data.
It is one extra attack vector. There is a data leak reported every week, and it is now apparent we cannot trust any organization to handle any datum securely, at all. It has gotten to the point where I now consider every piece of information compromised and sold on the dark web as soon as I am forced to transfer it to a third party. Because those are the odds.
It's also replacing all the personal information stores from thousand applications and websites you have previously registered, or would have to. So arguably it's thousand attack vectors less.
Not necessary to hearken back so far in history. In our present age the intelligence services consistently do not respect privacy rights of citizens, even when they are legally bound to.
This is the elephant in the room regarding the big "digital sovereignty" talks in the EU.
For the moment in the EU institutions the focus is mostly at the post-acceptance stage that everything must eventually migrate off US clouds. There is still some denial and hope that things will go back to "before" because it's going to be extremely costly to migrate, but at least high level EU civil servants start to see the strategic value of moving out.
However there is ZERO talk about mobile platforms... No alternative solution like linux for the desktop, no money or care given to the few alternative that tentatively exist, and zero talk about forcing companies (at least for the ones shipping android phones) to open up their firmwares and allow users to install alternative OS if they want to sell in the EU.
So whilst the backend guys more or less got the memo about sovereignty, I think there is still a lot of educational work to do regarding end user devices and what kind of digital slavery hole we're digging ourselves in...
This is not entirely true. I don't have much details but I know people who started to work on two separate free software projects aiming to make supported mobile OS.
These projects couldn't get funding before but they do now. Afaik it's still a battle with AI companies lobbying that soverign AI is much more important than mobile OS but there is some growing interest.
Imho i don't even think some linux based alternative to Android would be that hard to pull off but it's the hw companies that will be skeptical to build hw for such OS. I would have to be some govs puahing it as secure gov devices first.
In fact, it requires attestation: even if you install Google Play on some Android in an emulator/container/VM, on an alternative Android distro or in a rooted device, the app will not accept it.
It is true that Google (de facto) controls the platform and made themselves (de facto) essential to utilizing the platform by integrating their proprietary services so deeply into the OS that you need to be a behemoth of Samsungs caliber to even attempt to meaningfully re-purpose the AOSP, and this was a brilliant strategy because it has allowed Google to solidify their spot in the duopoly / oligarchy while seeming "open". But. I do believe that Google will continue to publish the AOSP source code under a permissive license and that this code will be indispensible to a European Manhattan project for tech sovereignty, should policymakers ever see the light.
(because you still need the hardware made, and it's not like the EU commission is even prepared to fix BSPs for that hardware)
The EU has endlessly sold critical infrastructure to US, India and China while actively sabotaging efforts to rebuild it and now want it back - for free. This is criticized as having a low chance of success, as well as being a pretty unreasonable demand.
Because this is all a political move. This so-called "EU sovereignty" drive is in fact aimed at further reducing sovereignty of the member states via further transfer of power and control to the EU.
These digital ID wallets do exactly that. Member states lose control of the ID infrastructure, which will now be controlled by the EU. There isn't much sovereignty left at national level...
This is totally not the EU version of China's social credit score system and WeChat SSO system.
It will totally not be used to sanction you the moment you become a nuisance to the EU elites by saying "wrong speech" that goes against their mandated doctrine or pointing out their acts of corruption or dismantling of democracy.
The EU building in Brussels even has the word "DEMOCRACY" plastered on the front in large bold letters[1], in case you forgot.
Don't fall for the trap. The question isn't how we should technically force age verification on anybody. The question is why they're pushing it onto everyone. I did not consent to this, neither did you.
But it is needed to protect the children. The politicians say so, so it has to be true. Being against this is very dangerous to our children and democracy. There is no alternative.
Seriously, there is something tremendously wrong with governance when politicians keep changing the whole world around us, without us having any say in it at all. The threat this measure poses to the internet and society is significant, yet it is being pushed through without any substantial debate or push back. This just is not how decent and actual democracies should function. What messed up timeline is this?
> Seriously, there is something tremendously wrong with governance when politicians keep changing the whole world around us, without us having any say in it at all.
That's where you're wrong. Most people actually do agree with age verification. Just because a decision is stupid it doesn't mean it's undemocratic. Trump was elected democratically, twice. Brexit passed through a referendum.
Yes, I said it before and I will say it again: We should invest our energy in the discussion whether to implement it and not already wonder how to implement it.
Shifting this question benefits only those who want to force this upon us.
Doesn't the "how to implement" determine whether to implement it? A poor implementation shouldn't be done, but a good implementation could make it simpler for companies to verify the ages of users, limit information passed to companies, offer a quality of life improvement for users.
It's funny, concomittant all this chest beating about representing open societies, democracies, unlike those creepy evil authoritarian states which we don't like, that the EC seems hell bent on proving we can have a police state _just_ as intrusive if not more than say: Russia. This is not how we were supposed to prove that we are better.
Funny how the worry of "digital exclusion" of the elders who would never be able to use a smartphone has been thrown out of the window in recent years.
Don't worry the focus is on the youth with this legislation. I have the suspicion it's about indoctrination of surveillance as normal.
Additionally the amount of elderly that don't have or can't use a phone or don't have anyone that can help them with it will decrease rapidly anyway. In my experience it's mostly the same generation as the people that remember WWII.
They probably think that they do not use "social media" either, so it does not affect them. But elders are not the only category. In any case, it is fundamentally wrong to be forced to use a specific platform, American or European, mobile or desktop, for Internet service access.
That's because they are lying to the people here. Just look at the "we must protect the children" lobbyists. It has never been about the children in the first place, that is just the convenient lie to force an authoritarian system in place.
Regardless of whether you personally use Android or iOS, I think that we can all agree that it is not right to be forced to use a specific platform in order to access almost any Internet services.
This is only an issue if it's the only way of verifying your age. If it's still accessible to everyone and this makes it significantly easier for 99.9999999% of people then why not?
Well, the plan is for it to be the only one. And even if it isn't, what's the alternative? Persona again? No thanks. They could have helped and made an alternative version of this system which used the ID chip plugged into a desktop PC, but they intentionally won't do so.
Well, they could change the laws to force people into slavery here,
e. g. by forcing them to use US corporations ("if you do not have
an app from Google store, you are excluded from society"). In that
case they see age sniffing as ultimate tool of spying on everyone,
so this is probably the real goal. What we all can see is that this
has never been about children - they are just abused as the red
hering here.
> "if you do not have an app from Google store, you are excluded from society"
It would be a difficult choice but would it really be so bad to be excluded from such a society? Don't a lot of people from silicon valley dream to be farmers in the wildlands?
This is even more than just android, I'm sure there are plenty of us using AOSP forks that do not have google services installed. I think the EU will overturn this with enough noise though. Hopefully the UK doesn't do the same, I've avoided having to root my phone so far and would like to keep it that way if possible.
From what I can gather from the linked discussion it was started as a pull request or a issue and was transferred to a discussion later. Perhaps some data was lost there? If you expand the comments fully there is also mention of a nuked merge request, I assume it was related to this text.
Edit it was not visible from the discussion link but it is visible from the issue link below. Also it seems to be transferred over from a totally different repo?
It used to say that, it was removed as a PR measure, while in practice the national implementations (as you do not use this app, but a national one) require it, because the specification only mandates Android/iOS versions to be provided (it allows others, but no government will do so), and it does not mandate them not to have "attestation".
The issue is not the issue, the issue is what their "solution" enables for expanding the surface that governments have for controlling details of how you live your life in the future once accepted.
> Are there any other Operating Systems than iOS, Android or Android flavors
Yes, there are many more: GNU/Linux, Windows, macOS, *BSD, etc.
This will prevent people who only own a computer and not a modern iOS/Android smartphone from accessing services and platforms.
This also sets a very strong anti-competition pressure. Which company will try now to invest on developing a new OS for smartphones if we already know users will not be able to access the most popular services & platforms with it?
Well, that would boost up torrent and sites and places like Usenet and IRC with no age verification at all.
English speakers can just use overseas servers (or non-UE services such as the ones in Switzerland). And maybe Usenet servers outside the US too.
Spanish speakers in Spain will just register services in Latinamerica sites with a VPN. Despite the dialect differences, non-jargon Spanish it's understood everywhere and once they got their user registered they can switch the country anytime.
Distros like Trisquel will just set their sites and mirrors outside the EU.
And, well, if they provide a portable torrent client for Windows among the torrent the law would be utterly broken.
Yes. LineageOS, GrapheneOS, Arch, Sailfish, various other open distros, Windows Phone, and a surprising number of random proprietary options (these are sometimes based on Android, and have some social media apps, but can't run regular Android apps that weren't specifically designed or altered for it) including for modern dumbphones. There are always more over time, too.
There's also old versions of iOS and Android. We don't want to end up in a situation where people are locked into one of only two vendors and can be forced to keep buying the newest model to use an ID app that only supports the most recent software. That'd be even worse for the environment than the current disposable smartphone culture.
Everything to do with the age verification push is corrupt and stupid to begin with. There isn't even a legitimate cause behind all this for forcing ANY app, even if it didn't also force people to buy a specific, expensive, privacy-invading American product.
> Are there any other Operating Systems than iOS, Android or Android flavors?
I remember a gov.uk team presentation. They had a usecase of someone using a PS Vita to access a government assistance program because that was the only device they had access to.
Among 450 million people in the EU there are definitely more OSes than just latest versions of iOS and Android.
I guess it's that time of the week again. Do we have a sockpuppet account to welcome in you by any chance?
The (actual) complaint of the thread appears to be resolved already (which would make sense given this is old news):
> In the README, the following is listed:
>> App and device verification based on Google Play Integrity API and Apple App Attestation
The README.md does not appear to feature such a section (nor any of the other files for that matter).
Separately, the title is editorializing, and falsely suggests there's some big bad EU app, even though the app that does exist is merely a reference implementation, not for end user usage. There's a reason the repository you're linking a discussion thread from only holds specs.
Edit:
> the specification does not prohibit it
My account has been rate-limited, so I'm not able to reply directly. Nevertheless, I'm sure you can appreciate that your title is still quite the lie then. "Not prohibiting it" is very different from "forcing", after all.
In the thread you will find many examples of national implementations which do require attestation. It was removed from the README as a PR measure, but in practice the specification does not prohibit it, so national implementations will still use it.
Two platforms that are not owned by companies in the EU. Effectively handing the keys to your state ID to private foreign enterprise.
What will you do when Apple/Google or the US Government effective immediately delete/block your app? The impact initially may be small but after a few years if widely used, you can break a country.
Another juicy threat vector is forcing the app stores to stealthily ship a modified version of the app that sends copies of the IDs and/or tracking data to US intelligence services.
(Reminder: we know Persona's verification software already shares verification data with the federal government. It's a leap to modifying other apps, but within the realm of possibility of US government power. There is absolutely desire from them to gather blackmail material on politically important people, and age verification systems connected to adult sites/apps are a great way to do it)
This is a problem, but not the only one. The biggest one is that the phones in question are locked and deny user freedom. I would not be content with an European "alternative", but which is as locked as iOS.
We have a definition at the beginning, for "Social media and other digital services (in short, social media+)":
“Within the scope of this report, the terms ‘social media+’ and ‘social media and other digital services’, are used to broadly define services that may be available to minors and contain age-inappropriate and/or risky features (for example, addictive and harmful features, among which infinite scroll, autoplay, recommendation algorithms and persistent notifications) and/or content. Social media and other digital services providers include online platforms serving as intermediaries of content from third parties, such as social media, as well as app stores. AI systems posing risks to minors’ safety and development, including AI companions, video games exposing children to harmful commercial practices or dangerous contacts, and video-sharing platforms enabling age-inappropriate access to minors are also included.”
So, let's see, services that may contain age-inappropriate and/or risky content, "online platforms serving as intermediaries of content from third parties".
How quickly can you come up with something that wouldn't fall in that definition?
It seems that anything that allows user-contributed content (such as plain old forums) or communication among users would be comprised in it.
And, yes, to be sure we explicitly include app stores (I guess including e.g. F-Droid, and what about software repositories?) and video games with intercommunication features.
What is this definition used for?
Recommendation 1 of chapter 3: “A harmonised EU-wide access restriction to *social media and other digital services*, including AI companions, for children under 13 is necessary.”
This is a report, not law, but it was commissioned by Ursula von der Leyen and
“The report is intended to inform future actions to be proposed by the European Commission and EU Member States to reinforce child safety online.”
What baffles me the most is how the EU commission constantly
works in favour of US corporations in the long run. This is
really strange. Something does not work in the explanations
given by the EU commission. To me it looks like US lobbyists
run the EU here.
Well, they really, really, really want the end game of tying (real) identity to digital identity. And they want it now, not 10+ years in the future when _theoretically_ there _might_ be some EU-friendly mobile operating system that everyone uses. Right now, Google and Apple are basically the entire smartphone market, so they gotta work with what they've got if they want these plans to come to fruition.
The spec mandates mobile versions to exist, and not PC ones. While a PC version can be provided, no government will do that, because they will do the bare minimum.
You must realize, age verification is for more then just Googles Android apps.
Such a strong new legal framework must consider consumer hardware actually in use:
- Android variations Like GrapheneOS, Huawei's HarmonyOS, older phones running custom ROMs
- Linux phones, which are sold in
the EU and by EU companies
- Desktop operating systems
All of them can run Web Apps, and thus need age verification
Thing is, the status quo is absolutely worse. My 13yo son likes making Roblox games. Suddenly, some months ago, Roblox made a change where you’re not allowed to share your games with friends unless you do “age verification”, apparently in some misguided bid to beat the pedos. In Roblox’ case, this means sharing your 3D likeness with some sketchy American business who pinky promises to delete said data after. I don’t want random American tech companies to have my kids’ biometric info like that, able to sell it to whoever asks. Nor my passport or anything like that.
I’d much prefer a government supplied app, that’s guaranteed to protect my privacy, and has no business incentive to sell my data, where I can see what data about me (or my son) is shared with Roblox or whichever sleazy business wants it.
Obviously this only makes sense if the government is less sleazy than the average American tech business, but for all its faults, I think that currently holds for the EU (and most of its member countries). There’s plenty precedent of EU governments doing privacy-conscious apps right (the Dutch covid tracking app comes to mind).
I hope they see reason and fix this here issue.
How about the option of the state not being so tyrannical in meddling about what people anonymously do online in their free time?
To the extent that it matters, I think the missing link here is "primary education should support a parent's intent to limit unrestricted internet access for their children." That is, during school activities where internet use is unavoidable, require supervision. (Maybe a lab monitor that can roam the room and see screens?) And for homework, don't assume the kid has internet access, because that is the parent's choice, and they may well not. On the flip side, if the parent trusts their kid with that access, or intends for them to learn through real world experience, let them. That should not be the state's decision.
The problem of course is that this idea in my head is a pipe dream. Schools seem to be well onboard with digital coursework, presumably for efficiency reasons? Unclear. I'm not sure what a more practical middle ground actually looks like.
Also, don't use Roblox, you can freely share games made with PICO-8, Löve, Godot, Rpgmaker, Game maker and the like, no need to go to the hell scape that is Roblox and its dark patern and locked down ecosystem.
Don't get me wrong. I agree roblox is a very shady operation, but that does not erase the fact that their platform is unmatched when it comes to letting kids make games.
There also Luanti, the new name of MineTest, which is closer to the Roblox experience (in the sense that there already a playable game there, and creating new stuff is closing to modding than to game making).
The only thing close is minecraft, which from what I heard already has similar restrictions on in game chat, plus other shady maneuvers from Microsoft.
It's the same network effect with other megacorp, we could argue the same about X/Instagram/Mastodon, the question could be changed to: Do you want your children to be groomed to use closed source ecosystem from shady companies or do you prefer they gain experience in using relatively open ecosystem ?
Luanti let you make multiplayer games/mods too. For Minecraft there way to play outside of Microsoft sanctioned versions and servers.
Nobody uses platforms because they are are looking to exercise billions of options. The point is easy commonality. You sit next to a kid, and, what do you know, they are into Roblox too. Cool. Wanna play?
In any case, I think that age gating would not be needed if the platforms were regulated to remove addictive recommendation algorithms.
This is a bit of a 64,000 euro question, though. Look very closely at what the government exemptions for GDPR are.
I don't think it's Godwin's Law when you are so spot on, exactly describing the worst case.
However even if the app is secure the storage and handling of the information is a different matter and it has been shown that care is not always taken.
Governments likely already know your name, age, place of birth, so having an app with a standard API for verifying users isn't giving the government additional data.
so it will gather extra data, sell it sideways and leak like hell. (as they already do with all the data they already have)
https://www-bitsoffreedom-nl.translate.goog/2026/07/06/aivd-...
However there is ZERO talk about mobile platforms... No alternative solution like linux for the desktop, no money or care given to the few alternative that tentatively exist, and zero talk about forcing companies (at least for the ones shipping android phones) to open up their firmwares and allow users to install alternative OS if they want to sell in the EU.
So whilst the backend guys more or less got the memo about sovereignty, I think there is still a lot of educational work to do regarding end user devices and what kind of digital slavery hole we're digging ourselves in...
(because you still need the hardware made, and it's not like the EU commission is even prepared to fix BSPs for that hardware)
The EU has endlessly sold critical infrastructure to US, India and China while actively sabotaging efforts to rebuild it and now want it back - for free. This is criticized as having a low chance of success, as well as being a pretty unreasonable demand.
These digital ID wallets do exactly that. Member states lose control of the ID infrastructure, which will now be controlled by the EU. There isn't much sovereignty left at national level...
It will totally not be used to sanction you the moment you become a nuisance to the EU elites by saying "wrong speech" that goes against their mandated doctrine or pointing out their acts of corruption or dismantling of democracy.
The EU building in Brussels even has the word "DEMOCRACY" plastered on the front in large bold letters[1], in case you forgot.
[1] https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-287829
Seriously, there is something tremendously wrong with governance when politicians keep changing the whole world around us, without us having any say in it at all. The threat this measure poses to the internet and society is significant, yet it is being pushed through without any substantial debate or push back. This just is not how decent and actual democracies should function. What messed up timeline is this?
That's where you're wrong. Most people actually do agree with age verification. Just because a decision is stupid it doesn't mean it's undemocratic. Trump was elected democratically, twice. Brexit passed through a referendum.
Shifting this question benefits only those who want to force this upon us.
Additionally the amount of elderly that don't have or can't use a phone or don't have anyone that can help them with it will decrease rapidly anyway. In my experience it's mostly the same generation as the people that remember WWII.
"EU age verification app to ban any Android system not licensed by Google" 27-jul-2025 https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyFromEU/comments/1mah79o/eu_age_v...
and
"EU age verification app not planning desktop support" 24-sep-2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074
It's not like it's a feature for you the end user, it doesn't solve any of your problems, on the contrary, it creates new ones.
Does Roblox sell them ? If no it's a non sequitur.
How much of a problem is the online availability of alcohol or cigarettes in the health of children ?
It would be a difficult choice but would it really be so bad to be excluded from such a society? Don't a lot of people from silicon valley dream to be farmers in the wildlands?
App and device verification based on Google Play Integrity API and Apple App Attestation
But I can't find that anywhere. Am I missing something?
Edit it was not visible from the discussion link but it is visible from the issue link below. Also it seems to be transferred over from a totally different repo?
https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic...
Yes, that this post is propaganda.
Are there any other Operating Systems than iOS, Android or Android flavors?
WebOS was nice but who is still using this? Symbian? Can you even use Social Media Apps with another phone OS?
Yes, there are many more: GNU/Linux, Windows, macOS, *BSD, etc.
This will prevent people who only own a computer and not a modern iOS/Android smartphone from accessing services and platforms.
This also sets a very strong anti-competition pressure. Which company will try now to invest on developing a new OS for smartphones if we already know users will not be able to access the most popular services & platforms with it?
Spanish speakers in Spain will just register services in Latinamerica sites with a VPN. Despite the dialect differences, non-jargon Spanish it's understood everywhere and once they got their user registered they can switch the country anytime.
Distros like Trisquel will just set their sites and mirrors outside the EU. And, well, if they provide a portable torrent client for Windows among the torrent the law would be utterly broken.
Switzerland absolutely complies to EU (and US) demands for a long time now.
There's also old versions of iOS and Android. We don't want to end up in a situation where people are locked into one of only two vendors and can be forced to keep buying the newest model to use an ID app that only supports the most recent software. That'd be even worse for the environment than the current disposable smartphone culture.
Everything to do with the age verification push is corrupt and stupid to begin with. There isn't even a legitimate cause behind all this for forcing ANY app, even if it didn't also force people to buy a specific, expensive, privacy-invading American product.
There is GrapheneOS, HarmonyOS by Huawei, LineageOS for older phones and many more Android ROMs.
Additionally, Linux phones exist and are already sold in the EU to consumers, not just a prototype.
There's really no justification around limiting the OS selection.
There is also Linux, Windows, MacOS and many more operatint system not limited to phones.
Like Windows, MacOS and Linux?
I remember a gov.uk team presentation. They had a usecase of someone using a PS Vita to access a government assistance program because that was the only device they had access to.
Among 450 million people in the EU there are definitely more OSes than just latest versions of iOS and Android.
The (actual) complaint of the thread appears to be resolved already (which would make sense given this is old news):
> In the README, the following is listed:
>> App and device verification based on Google Play Integrity API and Apple App Attestation
The README.md does not appear to feature such a section (nor any of the other files for that matter).
Separately, the title is editorializing, and falsely suggests there's some big bad EU app, even though the app that does exist is merely a reference implementation, not for end user usage. There's a reason the repository you're linking a discussion thread from only holds specs.
Edit:
> the specification does not prohibit it
My account has been rate-limited, so I'm not able to reply directly. Nevertheless, I'm sure you can appreciate that your title is still quite the lie then. "Not prohibiting it" is very different from "forcing", after all.
What will you do when Apple/Google or the US Government effective immediately delete/block your app? The impact initially may be small but after a few years if widely used, you can break a country.
(Reminder: we know Persona's verification software already shares verification data with the federal government. It's a leap to modifying other apps, but within the realm of possibility of US government power. There is absolutely desire from them to gather blackmail material on politically important people, and age verification systems connected to adult sites/apps are a great way to do it)
We have a definition at the beginning, for "Social media and other digital services (in short, social media+)":
“Within the scope of this report, the terms ‘social media+’ and ‘social media and other digital services’, are used to broadly define services that may be available to minors and contain age-inappropriate and/or risky features (for example, addictive and harmful features, among which infinite scroll, autoplay, recommendation algorithms and persistent notifications) and/or content. Social media and other digital services providers include online platforms serving as intermediaries of content from third parties, such as social media, as well as app stores. AI systems posing risks to minors’ safety and development, including AI companions, video games exposing children to harmful commercial practices or dangerous contacts, and video-sharing platforms enabling age-inappropriate access to minors are also included.”
So, let's see, services that may contain age-inappropriate and/or risky content, "online platforms serving as intermediaries of content from third parties".
How quickly can you come up with something that wouldn't fall in that definition?
It seems that anything that allows user-contributed content (such as plain old forums) or communication among users would be comprised in it.
And, yes, to be sure we explicitly include app stores (I guess including e.g. F-Droid, and what about software repositories?) and video games with intercommunication features.
What is this definition used for?
Recommendation 1 of chapter 3: “A harmonised EU-wide access restriction to *social media and other digital services*, including AI companions, for children under 13 is necessary.”
This is a report, not law, but it was commissioned by Ursula von der Leyen and “The report is intended to inform future actions to be proposed by the European Commission and EU Member States to reinforce child safety online.”
It's actually disingenuous to think there won't be. This is a repository for a mobile app only.
Such a strong new legal framework must consider consumer hardware actually in use:
- Android variations Like GrapheneOS, Huawei's HarmonyOS, older phones running custom ROMs - Linux phones, which are sold in the EU and by EU companies
- Desktop operating systems
All of them can run Web Apps, and thus need age verification