zlacker

>>sschue+(OP)
This is a great example of how this whole requirement hasn't been properly thought out.

> Desktop support is not currently within the project's scope.

What I would like to take from this is that, by their own definition, desktop apps are out of scope for Age Verification. So does that mean we will see a return of the 'desktop applications' instead of everything being a web service ?

One can dream perhaps. Until then adults who are willing to 'do what they're told' will be the ones who are inconvenienced by this constantly.

Edit: Also this will completely disable any new phone OS' being developed. Why would anyone bother when you can't verify your wallet to do anything online.

>>bileka+vb
> oes that mean we will see a return of the 'desktop applications'...?

No. It's still required by law, which means that your desktop application will require some interaction with your smartphone.

>>Luker8+xc
Further forcing everybody to have their phone on person at all times

>>cenamu+hd
I've been saying this for years: eventually not having your phone on you and powered up at all times will not be a crime, but it will be grounds for questioning and search.

One day, there will be a knock on your door.

"Good morning, this is the police. Is there something wrong with your phone? Is your phone broken? Can we provide you with a charge?"

"No, I must have turned it off accidentally."

"Can we assist you with an upgrade? The newer models don't have power buttons."

>>pessim+Fe
What does seem to be happening is rather that the assumption of having a phone will be built into every little thing - in particular mobile payments are becoming mandatory in some places. Transportation including parking is sometimes locked behind an app. We could also see stuff like landlords moving to smart locks that a tenant open with their phone.

Since children are universally not considered real people with real rights schools requiring them to have the right apps to perform their schoolwork are to be expected.