This. Until the EU has a credible deterrence against Russia - and to some extent against the US riding roughshod - Denmark and Europe at large will say and do whatever is needed to keep America engaged.

But in 10 years time, when all the new gear that has been ordered is in use and mobilisation forces have been trained, patience with American bullying will grow very thin.

There’s a reason that the US has an official policy to undermine the EU; it’s pure divide-and-conquer. If Europe is unified (enough), they are a force to be reckoned with. If they are just a collection of small to medium countries they’ll be a compliant market to the US, with just enough backing for Russia to understand not to roll over Central European borders.

It’s geo-politics at play, on a grand stage.

Europe’s sole chance here is to build a decouple, duplicative, non-EU discriminating force structure (before you react to the use of the word discriminating, I’m only repeating what Madeleine Albrecht warned the EU against) that can act on its own, with its own continent wide nuclear umbrella.

The alternative is domination.

Two potholes and one just out of the blue on the motorway. It does seem statistically high, agree.

My last one was a pot hole as well - I expected the lads putting on the new tyre to tell me something had bent/buckled but everything balanced really easy.

So you could in Delphi’s VCL and that compiled to every platform too. And that in the early 90s.

That was en IE tag. I still used it all the time.

I was definitely being facetious 😄

My point is partly that not only do cinemas have to deal with managing all these people in there, they also have to compete with significantly better AV setups in people’s homes. Screens are much bigger, OLED, with surround sound at home. And at home I CAN press pause.

When cinemas were a big thing, people were lucky and wealthy if that had a 40” plasma at home. Now, you can get a 55” screen for the price of taking the family to a cinema 4 times.

I’d pay thrice the price if seating was good, volume was 75% of current levels, talking was policed, Mary Jane was finger banged in a car instead of the row behind me, popcorn weren’t thrown around, phones were off, commercials didn’t last 25 minutes before the main showing started, I could press pause and go to the bathroom or for a snack.

It may theoretically be a false assumption but in practice it’s really not. The MitID identification and signing framework of Denmark, and many other similar systems across the EU, is based entirely on “the device is personal, access to it is limited and the secure enclaves within them are trustworthy”.

You are correct that this framework is not designed for anyone who wishes to root their device or install a custom OS. In other words, it cuts out 0.00000000001% of the population. The colour of the app has a bigger impact than “oh no! We can’t support rooted devices”.

The article is talking about banning social media under a particular age. This is enabled by the new Digital Service Act, and specifically the Age Verification Blueprint within the European Digital Identity Wallet. The same discussion is happening all across the EU exactly because the EU now has shared standards defined for how age verification will work online.

So while it’s true that counties can enact their own laws, like a US state can, they do so within a framework of European supranational regulation and they definitely cannot (easily) make national laws that circumvent EU directives. Well, they can, but the punishments and the hassle is severe.

But very specifically these discussions are popping up all over the EU because suddenly the EU is actually putting in place the machinery that allows it to happen. So yes, it’s a French discussion, but one borne of and fed by the European-wide framework discussion.

There’s nothing in the EU age verification structure that requires you to hand more information to the places where you need to verify your age. In fact the system expressly prevents it. Similarly in the ZKP architecture, it it not legal, nor possible, for the age verification service to know where you log in.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood your comment and so I say this in great respect; but if you don’t understand the technical details about the system the EU has defined, you may be basing your resistance on wrong assumptions.

Ah I see what you mean.

I suspect the EU will regulate in the same way it’s done other enforcement; if you are above a certain size, different requirements apply to you.

Defining what is and what isn’t something is exactly what law has to do every single time it gets defined. I’m sure we can work this one out too.

The size of the tech giants cannot be the reason to not attempt regulation. If anything, it’s exactly the reason to regulate.

Our democracy regulates a lot of things that it (we) believe to be harmful to children: Cigarettes, gambling (also online), pornography, violence in media, alcohol etc etc.

Why is social media any different?

I agree that for the system to be anonymous the state has to live up to its commitment to anonymity. Have you read the EU’s regulation about this? In there is exactly a commitment that age verification has to be anonymous.

But, let’s take a reality check here:

• For the vast majority of the population, their ISP already collects every single website they visit.
• if the state wants to know what you’ve searched for and where you’ve been online, they already have that data stored. They can only access it legally with a court order.

Yes you can circumvent this logging (to some extent) through VPN - just like you can circumvent the requirement to verify your age with a VPN. But the vast majority don’t.

Wow. I don’t even know what to say.

My intent isn’t bad. I want kids to grow up without the harms of social media, just like I want them to grow up without the harms of gambling, tobacco etc. I wouldn’t expect children to be let in to see an 18-rated film? Why is social media any different? If we define it causes harm, which it definitely does, then why can’t we attempt to minimize harm through regulation?

What are YOU talking about?

I’m talking about French age verification, which is a national example of the EU’s ZKP age verification system, and which the article is about.

To the instance that issues the ZKP tokens you of course have to prove who you are. Once you have the ZKP age verification tokens and actually use them to prove your age, those tokens are negotiated solely between your device and the asking entity.

Have you actually read the EU’s required structure for this?

Only the entity that owns the private key can generate signed tokens. You can read about the Danish solution, which is the first and most developed implementation of the EU’s requirements for anonymity: https://digst.dk/media/5gybwsaq/implementing-age-verification-with-danish-digital-identity-wallet-dktb-09.pdf

You don’t own the signing private key so you can’t - mathematically can’t, not opinion can’t

Once again, have you read the EU proposal? We are, after all, talking about France here, not the UK.

The UK, no longer part of the EU, of course have gone much softer and enabled non-anonymous verification. I am of course deeply against this.

What I AM talking about is the ZKP method mandated by the EU, which is anonymous.

I’ll ignore your name calling; not very conducive to a debate.