Saw that interview, too. Biggest red flag to me was the claim, that they would use the mandatory id-document only to initially verify your'e not a bot - then discard it and they would "not store anything". Very hard to believe.

▲

Arainach a day ago | parent [-]

Why is that hard to believe? Plenty of systems work that way today. Holding on to that kind of information is a liability.

	▲	fp64 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The way verification works requires sharing unique identifiers that a government can always trace back to the real identity. It is not clear whether these identifiers are retained, but I believe it is partially necessary to allow for "decentralization"
	▲	mcfly_c-137 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes, absolutely. No argument on that. What I meant is, I find it hard to trust them on that claim: >we don't store anything except an encrypted token to prevent s.o. from opening multiple accounts. Authorities will not be able to identify users. The current political climate in Germany is quite the opposite: Less anonymity. More access for authorities. So why this wave of support from politics? I really would not mind to be wrong, though. But Elena Rossini points out a lot of things in her 3 posts that confirm my skepticism. Link to the interviews from german tv which I'm referring to[0]. Not sure if that helps. [0] https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/w-social-nachric...
	▲	chadgpt3 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		not a single big corporation throws away your identity documents, they are very valuable