The Wikipedia page doesn’t sound too bad.
The regulation linked from the wiki article only includes the word “age” three times and actually states:
[…] this prohibition should not lead the provider of the online platform to maintain, acquire or process more personal data than it already has in order to assess if the recipient of the service is a minor. Thus, this obligation should not incentivize providers of online platforms to collect the age of the recipient of the service prior to their use.
Haven’t looked at it any more than that, but it sounds like it’s already been in effect for ~2 years?
roude@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
I haven’t reviewed the whole thing, only small parts but it does look to handle online verification better (re: invasiveness).
There is a section talking about a prototype app already released that is used to store age. It verifies off a couple different government docs (ID, bank details, upcoming Digital ID), but in the end only stores the user’s age (no name, ID, birth date, or other details). The fact page for the app claims that once age is established there is no further contact between the user and age verifier, but of course this is where I likely see the issue with any age verification tool. It’ll depend on whether the verification tool trashes age-related data once done with it, or if they retain a copy for whatever reasons.
Proof of age is tied to the age required per country per activity, but this sounds far more reasonable than having a single company verify and manage age data (Persona in the US).
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Ahh yes, the app that coincidentally locks mobile OSes into the google ecosystem. 🤮
roude@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
It is a prototype.
Their development roadmap specifically mentions Android AND iOS versions…
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yes. But it excludes any sort of custom OS versions due to the way it’s implemented. So no Lineage, no Graphene.