LamaThematique

I asked theses questions to the person in charge, and published the response, you can read both questions and answers here : https://lemmy.world/post/51227026/25554402

I have a response from the representative:

Dear [NAME REDACTED],

Thank you for reading the registered text this closely. Allow me to explain our choice of text and language.

The short version: the title states the political goal, the registered text is the legal instrument. "No Digital ID & No Age Verification" means no mandatory digital ID and no mandatory age verification as a condition for using the internet. It has never meant that no identity tool may exist. What we fight is compulsion: the situation where you cannot read, watch, play or speak online without first proving who you are.

Why the text is written the way it is: a European Citizens' Initiative is not a petition, it is a formal request for legislation, and the Commission only registers initiatives that ask for something within its legal powers. A demand to abolish digital identity as such would not have been registrable, and it would also miss the actual danger. Digital ID systems already exist, eIDAS 2 is in force. The battle that can still be won is over whether using them stays a free choice. So the text demands binding law that keeps these systems voluntary and forces privacy into their design.

On your specific questions.

"Remain voluntary" versus "should require": these refer to two different subjects. Use must remain voluntary for citizens. The requirements apply to the systems themselves, as conditions any digital identity or age assurance tool must meet before it may operate. The legislation should require of the systems: anonymous proof of age, data minimisation, selective disclosure, open source, audits, no cross-service tracking. It should require nothing of you. There is no contradiction, one clause binds the citizen's freedom, the other binds the technology.

"Unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law": this is not our invention and not undefined. It is the limitation test of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the standard the Court of Justice applies to every restriction of fundamental rights. It means identification duties are only lawful where a law establishes them, courts can review them, and they pass a proportionality test. Opening a bank account, notarial acts, tax procedures: these are existing legal identification duties and the initiative does not touch them. Watching videos, reading media, playing games, using social networks is lawful activity where mandatory identification fails that test. The crucial point of the clause is who decides: necessity must be established by law and reviewable by a court, not declared by a platform's terms of service or a Commission recommendation.

Practical privacy preserving proof of age: yes, this exists and has for years. Attribute based credentials and zero knowledge proofs let you prove the single statement "over 18" without revealing your name, birthdate or documents, with the data on your own device and no central database. The IRMA architecture developed at Radboud University in Nijmegen is a working, open source example. Or the Belgian ItsME app (I am using it for example). Acceptable for us is exactly what the registered text lists: voluntary, anonymous or pseudonymous, on your device, data minimising, selective disclosure, open source, independently audited, no tracking across services, and with a real alternative for people who do not use a wallet at all. Not acceptable: uploading ID documents, face scans to third party verifiers, or any scheme where a wallet becomes the entry ticket to the internet.

Your final question, answered directly: we advocate both, because they are the same position. No one may be forced to identify themselves to use the internet. For the systems that exist anyway, binding law must make them voluntary and privacy preserving. A world where a voluntary, anonymous, audited age proof exists and nobody is compelled to use it is a world in which the title of our initiative is fulfilled. A campaign title compresses, a legal text has to be precise. Stop Killing Games did not literally outlaw killing games either.

You are right that this deserves to be explained without anyone having to email us. We will put this clarification into the FAQ on the website.

Thank you for the scrutiny. This is exactly the kind of engagement the initiative exists for.

Maybe I am going on a limb here, but it seems you truly care. If you want to support the initiative in some capacity, do let me know!

Best regards, [NAME REDACTED] Representative of the Group of Organisers

The mail i sendt:

Hello,

I was looking at the language on the ECI for "Stop Killing The Internet: No Digital ID & No Age Verification" and the description seems to contradict your title and the https://www.stopkillingtheinternet.com/%C2%A0website.

This is why i would like to ask for clarification on the following text from https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2026/000011_en :  We call on the European Commission to propose legislation ensuring that digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory. Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimization, selective disclosure, open-source implementation, independent security audits, prohibition of cross-service tracking by relying parties, and equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet.

There is a lot of language that seems to accept the idea and implementation of digital IDs and age checks, in total contradiction with the "No Digital ID & No Age Verification" title.  It even reads like it seems to advocate for the existence of age and identity verification as long as it follow some privacy & discriminatory requirements (left undefined). There is even contradiction within this paragraph: “remain voluntary” and “should require” is said about age assurance. Which is it ? I would like to know what are your exact position on this as well as responses to the following questions:

• “unless strictly necessary” is undefined. Is it all adult contents (games, video, media, etc...) or banks, insurance and administrative procedure (which already often require IDs) that count as necessary ?
• Do you have any practical solution for that “privacy preserving” proof of age ? What is acceptable for you ?

And most important : Are you advocating for "No Digital ID & No Age Verification" as the title indicate or for the creation of a digital identity and age-assurance systems that are "voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory" ? This is large difference to the point of complete contradiction.

Best regards, [NAME REDACTED].

Yeah, I read the language on their website and they seemed to be holding a much stricter line. Here the line seems more blurry where :

• in that same paragraph they say "remain voluntary" and "should require"
• "unless strictly necessary" is undefined. Is it all adult contents or banks, insurance and administrative procedure (which already often require IDs) that count as necessary ?
• Do they have solutions for that "privacy preserving" proof of age ?

I am not part the campaign so I'm only trying to guess.

Edit: I have mailed up the Representative of the ECI, I will send an update if i receive a response.

Everyone don't forget to Sign, Cross-post, Federate and Share everywhere you can !

While open source (well more like "open weights") cannot easily be enshittified they can absolutely be a stealthily made advertising tool.

For example : if you ask "how do I do X" it could recommand to you based on who paid the company making the LLM more money and you would be none the wiser.

For more obvious bias just ask Chinese models about Taiwan and other problematic subject to the Chinese gov and you'll see. And the source code isn't telling us anything about if the LLM weights encode some kind of propaganda, advertising or bias toward/against some entities.

The casing is not important here because, no matter how you write it the "current weather" always is an ENVIRONMENT variable ;)

Also I would be interested in knowing what features that you think is missing or should be added in LaManager

Can confirm that I don't see that, probably on your end

Hey, sorry about that, it seems like I lost internet during the night, it is now fixed.

edit: typo

After putting it to prod on my homeserver and running some test with a slow remote (a friend homeserver). I was able to have ~30 seconds downtime total across all services for a backup that needed 35 minutes to complete.

Usually an offline backups would have needed to have downtime for the entire 35 minutes to ensure a consistant state. Here i have the same guaranties for much cheaper.

note that the situation I have somewhat extreme but it shows well the benefits.

Thanks, don't hesitate to ask :)