Do not add Google Play Integrity integration · eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technical-specification · Discussion #19

Pinned

Jul 16, 2025 · 279 comments · 322 replies

In the README, the following is listed:

App and device verification based on Google Play Integrity API and Apple App Attestation

I would like to strongly urge to abandon this plan. Requiring a dependency on American tech giants for age verification further deepens the EU's dependency on America and the USA's control over the internet. Especially in the current political climate I hope I do not have to explain how undesirable and dangerous that is.

Furthermore I am surprised this is considered an important next step, given apps like the Dutch identity app Yivi (who has no such dependency) already exist and can be used for age verification by the government just fine (on the few select platforms that work with it). Yivi is even available on Open Source app stores like F-Droid. I think Yivi's existence should be sufficient proof that Google Play Integrity integration is unnecessary. Yivi (formerly IRMA) homepage: https://yivi.app/en/

0 replies

0 replies

In addition, tying age verification to specific operating systems and their vendors (large American tech companies) violates two of the three principles listed elsewhere in this org:

made available to anyone who wants to use it controlled by users

0 replies

0 replies

Digital sovereignty is a necessary step to reduce the risks of data processing.

There should be no dependencies for external services from third parties at all since each one adds a whole ecosystem of potential security issues.

0 replies

This is insane, what's the threat model? Someone remotely exploiting a device to steal proof of age of majority just to watch p__n (most common use case)? Is it even realistic? Why does this service need an app at all? Just create a modern web app, maybe even leveraging Digital Credentials API. I'm tired of app-for-everything.

0 replies

This happens because those who draft the technical specifications don't know how the technologies they propose work. As I've explained elsewhere, this is ridiculous. Here's a brief excerpt from one of my posts elsewhere:

It's incredible that the European Commission sanctions Google for abuse of dominant position and asks to open the operating system to other stores to allow "free" competition and you [the writer of technical specifications] impose the use of tools that exclude the free choice of the user and give to Google all the power of choice, that's really INCREDIBLE...

There are dozens of ways to secure these apps' certificates without using proprietary systems. Not to mention that Play Integrity systems are 100% illegal.

0 replies

There are dozens of ways to secure these apps' certificates without using proprietary systems.

Does it need to protect those certificates at all? Maybe I'm too naive, but couldn't this simply be implemented by verifying random challenge signed by a national identity provider?

User goes to p__n website Website detects user is visiting from Europe Website downloads them a file containing a random string Website tells them to visit verifyage.gov.example User logs via identity provider and uploads the file Challenge is signed and downloaded through the browser User goes back to the p__n website and uploads the file Website verifies the challenge is signed by a trusted entity

Avoids having to protect the signed challenge at all since it's single use, scheme is similar to authenticating with SSH or WebAuthn. I haven't checked the architecture thorough, perhaps does something similar in the end with more bloat in between.

9 replies

Perhaps the logical conclusion would be that strict age verification just isn't a useful thing to try, and instead parents should be encouraged to actually make use of the client-side filters that pretty much all smartphones have. I've made that argument here.

I agree, however given the people* currently see the internet helped by certain incidences (*cough* Roblox *cough*) I'm not very hopeful that this view will change in the near future. Maybe it could change once the system is implemented and fails horribly but that will take time. * Note: With "people" I don't just mean politicians. I've heard this from clueless parents as well as people from the "I've nothing to hide"-crowd that truly believe there is no way this could ever go wrong.

What the hell is a p__n website?

Porn, pornography. I see no reason fo the self-censorship here.

I was just following the format of the post I was originally responding to

0 replies

Fuck Google

0 replies

A mandatory Google account is unacceptable in a OSS Project

1 reply

*FOSS

Getting access to a website as a EU citizen by accepting the TOS of EU-penalized American megacorp is peak 1984.

0 replies

Besides the privacy issues, this feels like South Korea's IE6 problem back in the days, everything was so tied and dependent on it, that they couldn't get rid of it. But I guess we are just humans repeating mistakes, getting influenced by lobbyists, uninformed people, people who can't imagine how things will look like in 10 or more years

0 replies

This would be massive hinderance to all South EU states, where adoption of non google phones is large. This would be also massive dependency on google.

Furthermore, why on earth are you building digital ids but then not doing IDPs, then forcing users to use some extra app for agecheck... they and their OS maintains... It is bad UX, it causes issues, not sure if adds any security.

0 replies

I work in cybersecurity and this is a privacy and security nightmare. Just stop. Using a EU-controlled website with national credentials like it is proposed here #18 is the only reasonable solution. Or maybe just do not implement this at all. People are going to go to p*** websites a way or another anyway.

1 reply

This is one sane response. I will word it differently: if this cannot be implemented without hurting A LOT OF PEOPLE, then maybe it should not be implemented to solve just one problem. Their solution is simply dangerous and will hurt a lot of people, additionally will destroy computing by turning it into a closed cage.

Without mandatory scrappage, superseded hardware especially from smaller data centers predating such rules would have considerable resale value, especially if this is a black market.

1 reply

Maybe, but you seem too content with no new hardware being available.

If all new hardware becomes locked I get no choice but to stockpile pre-ban hardware. I refuse to let the verified/censored version of the Internet into my life.