So, basically his own party, CDU was part of the coalition when nuclear exit was decided. The chancellor from his own party, Merkel decided to accelerate exit after Fukushima, while increasing dependency on Russian gas and blocking construction of renewables in CDU/CSU governed states. And now it is the previous government that failed the energy transition. Funnily enough, both this and previous governments declared current state of affairs very inefficient and bureaucratic and promised to fix it, so the question is, if German political mainstream in general is capable of making substantial improvement or we should tear the system apart and elect AfD+BSW combo as shock therapy.
I agree on the problem of the mainstream having trouble to fix the system that feeds their corruption. I just fear that electing proven traitors such as AfD (partially financed by Russia and China, supported by Russian bots, now bootlicking the US admin) and BSW (directly controlled from Moscow) will only make a tough situation worse.
I have given them as examples, both having support from voters. There’s unfortunately no real alternative to mainstream parties at the moment from political point of view. Nobody really cares about cost of living and housing crisis, overcoming healthcare special interest group lobbies etc.
So true, unfortunately.
I wonder why that is the case. Maybe the majority of voters (pensionists, state employees, ...) is just not affected by these problems (yet)?
Most people have a vested interest in one party remaining in power, one that addresses their personal concerns over everything else. The ruling coalition just passed a pension reform that supports the older generation but is hostile to the young. Trade unions will support the SPD no matter what, because additional bureaucracy "benefits" workers. CDU is strongly influenced by business lobbies (and FDP too). Greens are feel-good choice for voters alarmed by climate change and as such are highly unstable (their pro-war stance could be probably a good idea, if Ukraine was winning, but now it looks detached from reality). The main problem is that German politics have professionalized, with careers starting straight from university, and became as opportunistic as product management in scale-ups. People understand that their political future isn’t tied to a decade-long housing program, so that is off the table.
I‘m starting thinking that those alternatives are deliberately ignored by the anti-verification crowd. It’s hard to explain otherwise why the most logical way to solve the problem is not in the spotlight.
No, I just don't want them. I don't want to constantly prove myself online. Screw that. If parents don't want kids to have social media then they have plenty of tools available to do that, including just not giving them a smartphone.
We should fix the actual problem (engagement driven social media) which causes polarization under adults too. This is just window dressing and gives more personal data to governments and advertisers.
It is the problem, if you see platforms that are not driving engagement (like here) they are faring much better.
And no I really don't want it. Give parents the tools to manage better and make sure the worst toxic traits of social media are banned (the EU could do this under the DSA/DMA) and there is no need to ban it for all minors then.
There's a lot of age-restricted content in Internet and plenty of use cases where digital ID is improving security/UX. When you say "I don't want it" instead of talking about your specific concerns and how they could be addressed, that is nonconstructive position I'm talking about.
I think the way this thread went is a perfect illustration of why people just "don't want it" - you started off talking about alternatives that were anonymous, and now you're talking about digital ID for "security" or even UX. Because that's how things have gone in practice.
Privacy-respecting, free, even technically superior options are regularly overlooked in favor of invasive and locked down options. See how often phone 2FA is forced "for security" when generic TOTP authenticators or passkeys could do better. Also see how specifications around passkeys are being set up to eventually squeeze out free implementations in favor of Google and Apple.
There are actual implementations that do not compromise privacy and anonymity. For example the EU is currently doing large scale field tests in several countries of such a system.
It involves your government issuing you a signed digital copy of your ID documents which gets cryptographically bound to the security hardware in your smart phone (support for other hardware security devices is planned for later).
To verify your age to a site your phone and the site use a protocol based on zero-knowledge proofs to demonstrate to the site that your phone has a bound ID document signed by your government that says your age is above the site's threshold, without disclosing anything else from your ID document to the site.
This demonstration requires the use of a key that was generated in the security hardware when the ID was bound, which shows that the site is talking to your phone and that the security hardware is unlocked, which is sufficient evidence that you have authorized this verification to satisfy the law.
Note that your government is not involved beyond the initial installation of the bound ID document on the phone. They get no information on what sites you later age verify for or when you do any age verifications.
Ok, a field test. Vs Australias actual full scale implementation, and the subsequent implementations by social media companies.
You cant honestly expect people to ignore the actual real world implementation right? Its not disingenuous to discuss whats actually been inflicted upon a full populace in favour of a test?
Not to forget that the UK was making lists of those it was providing digital licenses to. And that the UK has a history of leaking data like a sieve. The government making a list of known digital ID users can be coloured the same way.
Not to mention that not everyone will end up with a supported cryptographic device will they? Are we expecting this to run on linux without TPM 2.0? Lots of recent Linux migrants are there to avoid TPM 2.0 requirement. You keep mentioning hardware security, so I suspect its not going to be as easy as loading a certificate. Or even if extra methods for edge cases will be supported at all.
But its all still hypothetical anyway. We have an actual implementation to dissect. One that the Australian government is actively trying to sell to other countries.
What I'd hope people would be doing is that when a country like Australia is working out some system of mandatory age verification is to point to the EU system or something similar and say that if you do go through with this, how about waiting a year until that is released and then require that instead of some system that doesn't preserve privacy and anonymity?
They could point out that the EU system has been in development for years, with numerous expert reviews, all in the open with reference implementations of the protocols and apps for iOS and Android all on Github under open source licenses.
They could also point out it has been tested extensively in a series of field trials involving a large variety of sites and a large number of users, with the last two field trials scheduled to finish this year.
By simply waiting and making that the system they use they get a much more secure and privacy preserving system than what they would get otherwise, with others having already done the hard cryptographic parts and figured out usability issues and developed the apps. That's way better than going with some system that nobody was thinking about until they started working on legislation.
They could also point out that the sites they want to require age verification on will almost certain be supporting the EU system when it comes out. That's because the EU is requiring that member states that implement age verification laws require that sites accept this system. The state can allow or require accepting other system, but this one will be the one that works everywhere.
Countries that wait for the EU system and use it will then have an easier time getting companies to implement age verification in their country since those companies can simply use the same software they will be using in the EU.
As far as having a suitable device goes, in the EU somewhere in the 95-98% range of non-elderly adults have a suitable smart phone. It's higher the younger people are and is going up. Same in the US. In Australia it is around 97% of adults.
The EU is planning on later adding support for stand-alone hardware security devices which should cover those without a smart phone.
As far as government leaking lists of who has a digital ID, that's likely to be a list of most adult phone users. The overall system is not just a privacy and anonymity preserving age verification system. It's a digital wallet for storing a digital version of your physical ID card.
People will likely use it in most places they use their physical ID cards. People tend to love being able to use their phones in place of physical cards (all cards, not just ID cards), and will be getting it even if they never intend to use any sites that require age verification.
A leak that says "tzs has a digital ID on his phone" (if my country were to adopt such a system) would be about as concerning as a leak that says "tzs has his auto insurance card on his phone" or "tzs has a credit card on his phone". (This is also way car companies that let you install a digital key fob on your phone often make that a feature only on higher end trims even though it requires the exact same hardware as the lower trims. Enough people like the idea of not having to carry around the key fob that they will go up a trim level to get it).
If people can't get their government to delay until such a system is available they should be trying to get the law to include a provision that when such a system is available the government will support it and sites will have to accept it. That way they eventually get a privacy preserving option. That's a more likely way to work to get eventual privacy than trying to pass separate legislation later to add it.
I think in the end European digital ID is going to be impressive enough for others to pick up (not as impressive as using biometric data for payments in China - we don't want to go that route, but still). The integration friction will go down, the security will be tested and verification process hardened over time etc. So it doesn't really matter what opposition says at the moment and whether they will be able to tank the legislation in UK, USA or Australia. There will always be the success story in front of them, that will be hard to ignore. And literally any global website is going to support EU technology, making it major vector of innovation.
If mailboxes of some people were breached, those reset emails can be used to steal their Instagram accounts. So it can be some other breach being exploited, rather than a vulnerability in Instagram account itself.
The thing is, Europe is kinda special. Cascade effects of America forcefully taking over Greenland will be by orders of magnitude more painful to Americans than Brexit was to Britain. America flipping from an ally to an adversary will trigger huge economic decoupling and it is practically certain that dollar will immediately loose its weight and USA may even default on its debt after that. Yes, Europe is going to suffer too, but I have a gut feeling that European citizens will still do better.
Citizens are subjects, they have active voice. You may mean something deeper, but others will happily support only the “active voice” part. Corporations must not have it.
But in certain sense you are right. Corporate management should behave as citizens, and their citizen duties must be superior to their duties to shareholders.
> Beyond following the law, what are citizen duties?
Simple example: let’s say there’s an environmental law preventing corporation to make more profits. The good citizen should not try lobbying to repeal this law, even if this would be perfectly legal and lead to better outcome for shareholders. If CEO acts as good citizen and refuses to follow advice of the board and take this route, this should be legally defensible position.
OK but that would conflict with the charters of most companies. The charter instructs directors/officers to make profit for shareholders. It would be a significant undertaking to compel every company to somehow become a public benefit corporation.
An investment broker comes to an old German still keeping money in a bank.
- Look, Americans announced plans to get Greenland and extract all the resources! It's time to invest in the stock market!
- But what if Denmark disagrees?
- Don't worry! America will just take it anyway!
- And if Denmark resists?
- Then America will invade!
- But what if NATO collapses when America attacks a member state?
- Well... then America won't survive alone in a hostile world.
- And if America collapses?
- Mein Herr... then surely it's worth losing a few thousand euros just to watch that spectacle, no?
According to West, not allowed. However, the West does not exist anymore, and we have two different ideological camps within it. According to USA, it’s bad, but it did not hurt American interests, so a good deal is possible. According to EU, foreign policy of which is hijacked by Baltic right, it is still not allowed, but… Deep currents indicate that as soon as it’s done with formal condemnations, it is desirable that business will resume as usual.
There’s massive propaganda effort painting the picture of imminent invasion, so opinion polls are naturally reflecting that. I doubt that there was ever a reason for Finland to worry about it. It’s just a convenient narrative for politicians, mainly on the right. But I was not saying that it’s only right leaning voters think this way. Just pointed out that we have Kallas as head of EU diplomacy and few other vocal politicians from Baltic right wing parties, and they are fixated on Russian threat, which is necessary for their political survival.
Plenty of European businesses still operate in Russia or have set up their exit for easy return via Dubai legal entities. Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc.
>Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc
Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?
What businesses are doing, I don't know, I am more aware of what states are doing. What're your thoughts on the expansion of military expenditure? Let Ukraine die, keep ourselves defended?
> Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?
It’s telling that they consider this a possibility. If EU wanted it, they could protect Belgium. But anticipation of business as usual means that whoever distances from such decisions better, will do better.
„Let Ukraine die“ decision was made in 2022, when NATO chose not to engage directly and not to switch to war economy, rapidly scaling production of military equipment and supplies. In NATO vs Russia war, Russia had no chances, but it quickly became Ukraine vs Russia war with token Western support, where Ukraine has no chances in the long term. As for increase in military spending, it’s necessary, but whatever is done, is insufficient. It is barely enough for containment of Russia, and EU needs independent operation in Middle East and Africa, pushing out USA from the region (whatever America does there, always ricocheting on Europe, so they should be denied action without approval of allies)
That would make any movies based on stories in public domain impossible, because it would destroy all financial incentives to make them. No, derivative works should be on their own terms.
1. People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
2. I'm a mathematician - math is not copyrighted, yet it's still being done.
3. Is it really so important for society that copyrighted movies be based on old stories? Won't society benefit from new stories and characters?
To be clear, I don't propose to really implement it. But the existing system also sucks. I'm thinking that maybe incorporating such an idea into the existing system - limiting what you can do with public domain work - can be beneficial.
>People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
The right question to ask is what do they have in common, and the answer is nothing but an artificial legal construct of IP. To write public domain software you need a computer and 2 sqm of space (or even less) that you occupy while working. Material resources needed to shoot one movie are one big reason you need financial model.
2. math is irrelevant here, has nothing in common with movies or music
You're comparing apples and really big complicated apples. Books are protected by copyright and they only need a computer and 2 sqm of space, right? People make copyright protected videos with 2 sqm of space and a phone that get as many views as many large budget movies.
I think the differences between inventing a story or song and inventing a theory are not as great as you pretend.
The big difference really is status quo and tradition.
>I think the differences between inventing a story or song and inventing a theory are not as great as you pretend.
I do not pretend anything and I‘m not talking about inventing a story. I‘m talking about movie production, which, even with heavy use of AI is by orders of magnitude more expensive than a piece of free software, and certainly cannot be done with a single computer.
Why are you choosing to compare inventing math to producing a movie? How does that help you advance your argument that it is reasonable for one to be under copyright and not the other?
Movies absolutely can be created with one computer. There was a movie shot entirely on an iphone. They can be edited on an iphone too. Heck, movies can be created without a single computer. That was the only way to make movies for many decades.
If something is important culturally and historically, financial incentives aren't really important (assuming you're not making a joke about Hollywood being creatively bankrupt).
Whenever it concerns expensive production, and historical pieces are inevitably not „Blair witch“ cheap, financial model is very important. Given that this suggestion implies that copyright still exists, the film makers will have to choose either to raise money from state or donations to make something from public domain works or to explore material that is still copyrighted and count on box office and streaming revenues. The boundary between those choices is set to a random expiration number, the incentives are obviously skewed towards better pay, so chances are high that whatever enters public domain will be quickly forgotten by the public.
It is an interesting thought experiment, but would pretty much make standalone copy able creative work like photography, books, music, or movies impossible to sell. Works could be created on commission, but there would be a strong disincentive for producing any work without commission.
1. People who make money from GPL software typically make their money from support contracts or from running a service. Unlike software, photography, books, music and movies don’t require any ongoing maintenance once created to keep them running or up to date. There is some value in the distribution of physical copies, but digital distribution would have almost no value.
2. Math is pretty much in this boat already. Most math work is either directly paid for by a company that consumes it, or is academic work with incredibly high barriers to entry and constant hustling for grant funding. I wouldn’t wish that on any field, would you?
3. Take for example Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. While the characters are new, they draw upon a rich mythology from the public domain (eg dragons, goblins, wizards, witches, etc).
It is an interesting discussion, but I expect removing the freedom to use public domain works outside of the public domain would was to very bad outcomes.
> 1. People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
The GPL family of licences are significantly different from Public Domain. There is still the option of relicensing for commercial use, for example, which is moot under a public domain status. Though some¹ treat the GPL as PD anyway…
MIT might be a more valid comparator, so to answer the question from that PoV: Money. Many OSS contributors do it to scratch their own itch, or for some definition of “community”, the cost of contribution is generally low (or feels like free) and they don't need anything back. Some are supported by donations or sponsorship but not the majority. Those in commercial environments are supporting projects (by contributions or sponsorship) that are useful to that commercial interest, so there is a benefit there but no need for direct payment (they may get payment for support and/or consulting services or via subscriptions for a paid-for hosted instance of whatever). Someone making a film of a book, or a licensed sequel/prequel/other, unless they are doing it for love or just shits & giggles like some fan-made efforts, generally needs/wants to make profit from it, especially in the case of film/TV which can have a large up-front cost - that is unlikely to happen if the new derived work is automatically public domain.
> 2. […] math is not copyrighted, yet it's still being done.
Not for Hollywood level money, it usually isn't :)
> 3. […] Won't society benefit from new stories and characters?
Yes, it certainly would IMO. But it turns out there is less easy money in that. People flock en-mass to works based on familiar IP more than they do to original works, for better or (often) worse. To paraphrase MiB: A person is classy and appreciates original good art, people are a bunch of dumb consumers of fast food for the mind.
Original works do sometimes smash through that barrier of course, they then often become the new IP that a bunch of derived works are based on so in several years time they are part of the cycle makers of new original works are competing with.
> 3. Is it really so important for society that copyrighted movies be based on old stories? […]
No. But it is important for the entertainment industry, for the reason noted above. What is good for society isn't necessarily the same as what people are willing to pay for, and what is good for the producers of works (away from those doing it purely for their own satisfaction or sense of artistic vision) is what people are willing to pay to experience.
--------
[1] Onyx, makers of the Boox line of GPL violating e-ink devices, to name one of them², see comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41412582 for more discussion about that.
[2] I pick them out from that small crowd because I might have been interested enough to buy one of their products were it not for this issue. Unfortunately many buyers are unaware of the matter, or are aware but don't care sufficiently for it to change their buying decision.
reply