zlacker

[return to "EU age verification app not planning desktop support"]
1. dvdkon+hk[view] [source] 2025-09-24 13:47:44
>>sschue+(OP)
I finally took a look at the DSA, and it only mentions anything relevant to age verification in three places:

- Recital 71, which vaguely suggests minors' privacy and security should be extra-protected, but says that services shouldn't process extra personal data to identify them.

- Article 28, which says that platforms should provide a high level of "privacy, safety, and security of minors", again without processing extra personal data to identify them. It also says that the Commision may "issue guidelines", but says nothing suggesting age verification should be implemented.

- Article 35, which says that "large online platforms" should maybe implement age verification.

Furthermore, recital 57 says that the regulations for online platforms shouldn't apply to micro/small enterprises (which has a definition somewhere). All together, I don't see anything suggesting that anyone but the largest online services is being forced to implement age verification right now.

Judging by various posts by the Commision I've seen online, they're certainly pushing for the situation to be seen this way, but de iure, that's currently not happening.

EDIT: I found the guidelines mentioned [0], and a nice commentary on the age verification parts [1].

[0]: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-... [1]: https://dsa-observatory.eu/2025/07/31/do-the-dsa-guidelines-...

◧◩
2. jeroen+0n[view] [source] 2025-09-24 13:58:33
>>dvdkon+hk
The digital identity wallet isn't part of the DSA; it is part of an effort to bring identity to your phone, basically: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

If implemented according to plan, things like ID cards, drivers' licenses, diplomas, train tickets, and even payment control can be handled within such apps entirely digitally. Aside from age verification, with attribute based authentication you can prove digitally that you're permitted to drive a certain vehicle without revealing your social security number (equivalent).

A healthy dose of cynicism would make clear that the moment such optional infrastructure is rolled out, new legislation can be drafted to "save on expenses" by enforcing this digital model and "protect the kids/fight the terrorists" by forcing age verification on more businesses.

◧◩◪
3. dvdkon+5o[view] [source] 2025-09-24 14:02:50
>>jeroen+0n
Yes, but this isn't part of the digital wallet project. As I understand it, the Commision was so impatient with age-verification that they commissioned this project separately, because they didn't want to wait for the full solution, hence it being called a "mini-ID wallet".

I'm certainly not against vigilance and making sure no new laws mandating the use of either this or the full digital wallet sneak through, but my point is that, despite the Commision's misleading public stance, age verification is (mostly) not mandatory today.

◧◩◪◨
4. jeroen+Jp[view] [source] 2025-09-24 14:10:48
>>dvdkon+5o
That's true, but as this is only a small part of the larger project, it's also targeting a very specific part of legislation.

The README for the age verification spec specifically calls out article 28 of the DSA and the Louvain-la-Neuve Declaration. Neither is aiming to be the mandated age verification mechanism for every single website, but rather a specific tool to solve a specific problem: age limits on social media and big tech websites.

If, or, seeing Denmark's recent bullshit: when, we do get mandatory age requirements, it'll be part of new legislation that will likely take years to go into effect, and, seeing how long it took websites to comply with the GDPR, will start affecting most websites even later. This isn't the doomsday law that I would've expected to come from the US if they were to write something like this, and using privacy-first cryptography does give me some faint hope that this isn't just a big performance to hide malicious intent. This could've been as bad as eIDAS 2.0 with the QACs and other unreasonable technical requirements.

[go to top]