cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/36106116
[...]
According to the measures, introduced by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), each internet user in China will be issued with a unique “web number,” or wanghao (网号), that is linked to their personal information. While these IDs are, according to the MPS notice, to be issued on a strictly voluntary basis through public service platforms, the government appears to have been working on this system for quite some time — and state media are strongly promoting it as a means of guaranteeing personal “information security” (信息安全). With big plans afoot for how these IDs will be deployed, one obvious question is whether these measures will remain voluntary.
[...]
The measures bring China one step closer to centralized control over how Chinese citizens access the internet. The Cybersecurity Law of 2017 merely stipulated that when registering an account on, say, social media, netizens must register their “personal information” (个人信息), also called “identifying information” (身份信息). That led to uneven interpretations by private companies of what information was required. Whereas some sites merely ask for your name and phone number, others also ask for your ID number — while still others, like Huawei’s cloud software, want your facial biometrics on top of it.
[...]
Beyond the key question of personal data security, there is the risk that the cyber ID system could work as an internet kill switch on each and every citizen. It might grant the central government the power to bar citizens from accessing the internet, simply by blocking their cyber ID. “The real purpose is to control people’s behavior on the Internet,” Lao Dongyan cautioned last year.
[...]
Take a closer look at state media coverage of the evolving cyber ID system and the expansion of its application seems a foregone conclusion — even extending to the offline world. Coverage by CCTV reported last month that it would make ID verification easier in many contexts. “In the future, it can be used in all the places where you need to show your ID card,” a professor at Tsinghua’s AI Institute said of the cyber ID. Imagine using your cyber ID in the future to board the train or access the expressway.
[...]
While Chinese state media emphasize the increased ease and security cyber IDs will bring, the underlying reality is more troubling. Chinese citizens may soon find themselves dependent on government-issued digital credentials for even the most basic freedoms — online and off.
It's not essentially the same, for the exact reason you describe: it's a way to provide proof of a specific piece of data without revealing all the rest. If we accept that governments (i.e. societies) have a right to enforce their laws, then this is the best possible way to do it.
More generally, as others point out and you must already know, there is nothing "essentially the same" about internet privacy in China vs Europe.
If you can't verify your age you can't access those services. That's the same as
The thing that Europe cannot do is associate users to accounts in a convenient way. But everybody who doesn't use a VPN can be identified by their IP address and everybody else in the same way TOR users can be identified.
Add the planned access to messenger service E2E encryption as well as the planned huge military spending and we must be heading towards funny times.
Children can be protected by other means.
Sure, that's all obviously true. But Europe's situation is still not "essentially the same as" China's.
This scenario I'm still sceptical about. It's so dumb, so technically illiterate, so futile at its declared purpose that I can't help thinking that a coalition of opponents including bit tech itself will mean it goes nowhere.
Of course, the law is not active yet. Once activated, what would be different?
We're going round in circles. I already answered that: zero-knowledge-proof anonymity is, all else aside, better than the alternative.
My general point is (again...) that Europe’s (overall) situation is still not “essentially the same as” China’s.
Why did you agree to my argument that they are essentially the same?