The EU’s executive arm has also developed its own age verification app, which has the “highest privacy standards in the world,” according to Von der Leyen. Member states will soon be able to integrate it into their digital wallets, and it can easily be enforced by online platforms. “No more excuses – the technology for age-verification is available,” the EU chief said.

So more pro age-verification propaganda, instead of what the headline suggests: nothing concrete in that regard. How about devices with parental control for kids, which only allow access to platforms suitable for the demographic, instead of “age”-gating the entire internet (including for adults)?

More consumer spyglasses and bodycams, which perpetually feed an AI agent; that isn’t dystopian, you are…

A resolution low enough to be able to identify “ingredients they have in front of them”. And they’re also planning to launch smart glasses (read: spyglasses) and AI pendants (read: consumer bodycams), as to be able to compete with Meta and OpenAI (with regards to harvesting data without consent?) But I guess you first introduce them into one of your most widely-adopted wearable, where the high probability of people being spied on, isn’t as obvious compared to relatively uncommon spyglasses or bodycams.

Yeah, on the rare occasion where I do order something online, and happen to trip up the convoluted system, I rather give the webshop a call, than giving into this dystopian nonsense. And I’ve long done away with any mainstream platforms, which I suspect will happily adopt the system (especially those who forced me to adopt 2FA: which was seemingly just in preparation of this…). I’ll happily function as an example, to illustrate just how morally unjust it is, to effectively force someone to purchase and use a device they explicitly chose not to use; I really want to hear someone justify that.

I think there’s few people left, which do not believe we’ve gone too far with technology, so the Amish to some extend are definitely onto something.

It turns out reCAPCHA has been a privacy nightmare from the beginning: from silently monitoring user activity in the background, to sending payment information to Google; in order for an AI to assess the data, and return a risk-score to the website. But that apparently wasn’t bold enough, and now an effective 2FA is required, which provides additional telemetry to Google (but not to the website or app: which is obviously the privacy concern). So get ready to 2FA with Google upon registration, login, updating your cart, and payment; or to skip the hassle, you should just let an approved “shopping assistant” make purchases for you (“that drive a projected 25% increase in average order value”). I don’t even own an modern Android or iOS device, so how am I supposed to solve these?

It seems they’re really focusing on “registration, login, cart, and payment”, which would mean the customer would have to do this effective 2FA (which most consumers have conveniently been conditioned into using…), at least during these stages. This paired with the ability to allow “trusted” AI agents (including shopping assistants “that drive a projected 25% increase in average order value”), really makes it appear they’re incentivizing use of these shopping assistants (in order to avoid the 2FA hassle). It’s batshit insane the big-tech oligopoly has enshittified the internet to such a degree, the average consumer is required to outsource their usage to a big-tech agent (or at least one “trusted” by these platforms), for them to get any meaningful use out of it. And the rogue actors? Well, they’ll probably resort back to exploiting the third-world for solving CAPTCHAs…

I’ll give it a year before this “voluntary” evaluation becomes mandatory, while standards based on industry-leading models, dictate guardrails impossible to implement for upcoming models. And thus giving reason to consider would-be competitors’ models a “national security risk”: evaluated by a board, which by then, is composed of “experts” with a vested interest in the leading industry…

Personally I believe AI models, using content for which they do not have the creator’s explicit permission, have no right to exist (at least as a commercially available product).

Camera surveillance is simply no longer compatible with use in spaces, structurally inviting the general public, due to advances in technology. You cannot physically limit what’s being captured by an image sensor: it captures everything, and filtering (including removable masking) is only able to happen after collection. Which could also mean the data itself, or derivatives thereof, may be stored indefinitely; and could, at any time in the future, be used as evidence against members of society.

The only meaningful strategy to prohibit this, is to physically remove these surveillance systems: so personal data isn’t collected to begin with. Don’t even get me started, about the GDPR supposedly protecting citizens against this type of surveillance: it pushed for modernization of the systems, legitimized the “collect but protect” approach, created physical backdoors for the government to get ahold personal data being collected, and incentivized member states to piggy bank off of it.

But I’m glad the cracks are beginning to surface, and ordinary folks starting to grow uncomfortable around modern camera surveillance too, because that’s the only reasonable response to it.

It’s not a data protection issue, it’s a data collection issue

… these updated regulations further demonstrate the state’s commitment to public safety

No it doesn’t. Taking these vehicles, which are clearly not production ready, off the streets would. So now you have these effective 360 degree cameras, systematically roaming public streets, that are legally required to collect and report data on “safety related” incidents (which could be anything these days).

I wish more people understood this problem isn’t restricted to Flock systems: every modern IP surveillance system can (and does) share evidence digitally, or set access privileges to their systems (allowing for real-time monitoring by third parties: mostly law enforcement); or if you’re a larger organization in the European Union, the GDPR requires a ‘Data Protection Officer (DPO)’ to have access to personal data being collected at all times, and must abide to any request being made by authorities, while under professional secrecy (and explicitly not disclose such additional processing, in access requests filed by data subjects). All of these seemingly separate systems (regardless of being privately or publicly owned), are increasingly growing interconnected, typically resulting into local ‘Operation Control Centers (OCCs)’; which may in turn share data they aggregate to further national, or even globally spanning OCCs.

This “problem” is nearly as old as the platform itself, as I can remember doing this as a child, when setting up my Hyves profile in the second half of the 2000’s; but no, now is the time to wake up… Right when there’s global efforts to “age” verify the internet, how coincidental…

(1) Offer a solution which exacerbates bot-traffic on the internet, (2) legitimize the need for verification of users as a result, (3) offer the most privacy-invasive “solution” to the “problem” imaginable: problem(1)-reaction(2)-solution(3)… every parasite’s favorite paradigm :)

I’m a European, and yet I wrote this; but I would agree many people (regardless of whether or not European) have progressively been accustomed, to having their personal identify tied to their devices (often for the sake of convenience, or out of necessity: the uncalled-for Two Factor Authentication (2FA) applications, for accessing government or work-related services, being an example), and I’ve not been an exception to that rule.

For me these were limited to applications, typically where a higher degree of security is expected: banking applications, the before mentioned 2FA applications, government mailbox applications, etc. But I’ve also once sent, a nearly fully redacted copy of my driver’s license to YouTube, in order to listen to music with naughty artwork (which I already believed to be ridiculous at the time, but gave into nevertheless).

Currently I would never let such applications near devices for general use, and it wouldn’t even cross my mind, to ever send any signal that signifies I’m not, in fact, a child, and shouldn’t be treated as such; ultimately so abusive services are green-lit to surveil me as an adult, instead of having to be more conservative (as data collection on children is typically more strict: for whatever reason… instead of people, regardless of age, being treated with dignity).

So no, not everybody has applications on their device, which link to, or directly store one’s personal identity. I rarely have to interact with financial or government services, and have zero interest, in being required to do so in order to access “age-restricted” content online. I like my pseudo-anonymity, and do not at all, trust a government application, which links this pseudo-anonymous activity to my personal identity.

Welp, this was bound to happen, wasn’t it? I’m pretty sure they’re referring to this application, which I stumbled upon a while back. If I remember correctly, the app “allows” (or implicitly forces) the user to store a government issued identity: able to attest to an age-restricted website, whether or not the user is of age.

It does this, supposedly by “just” sharing an age-bracket with the website; but here’s the kicker: the Union, in its generosity, has granted their citizens an in-app option, to withdraw this signal from the websites it has been provided to. What this means in practice, is the app storing one’s government-issued identify, also ties back to every account requiring “age-verification”…

So now, every device containing the app, has the owner’s government-issued identify on it, together with connections to every age-restricted service. And considering the apps are maintained by the Union, or member states (through their own implementations), creating a backdoor to the application’s contents… I mean to “observe app usage”, would be absolutely trivial.

Again, I’ve read it a while back, so some things might’ve changed, and my memory might be spotty; but I’m quite sure it’s along the lines I’ve described.

If that’s the case, it probably means you just get to “own” products as a subscription; which collectively covers supposed “refurbished” product replacements when they break.

Assuming quantum computing has finally delivered on its promises by that time, how would I interpret that single bit?

I agree. But on the other hand, it also means mass-manipulation should, in theory, become more complicated.

Because if you guilt-trip the population into believing, their misfortune is due to majority vote, being in favor of controversial policy (which is bipartisan); they will fight amongst each other, as opposed to their monarch. But with today’s surveillance technology, a monarch would be able to avoid mass protest: by impairing leaders during the early stages of their movements; prohibiting these from snowballing out of control. This would further simplify the process of control, as opposed to having to ensure corruption, in the binary left-right politics.

If you mean: in a constant stream of content, people rarely stop to appreciate the tremendous work, that went into the creation of good pieces. I agree, and it’s especially offensive when quickly washed away, with low effort garbage like AI “content”.