They don’t seem to oppose any of that if you read the intro

> 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 minimisation, 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.

▲

jvuygbbkuurx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It has been quite a slippery slope. Services that used to allow password auth have retired them in favour of bank detail login. I can kind of get it, since it's offloading support to the banks, but it's also annoying since the bank logins themselves are a pain to setup, maintain and use (mobile app only).

It would be nice to have some good standard that is less invasive.

	▲	victorbjorklund 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		At least in Sweden it is because it is a pain to have both bank id and passwords because by contract it is forbidden to allow a user that previous used bankid to ever use password again.

▲

iLoveOncall 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you seriously asking to read more than the title from an account created less than 30 minutes ago?

	▲	TryingToBeNice 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My apologies for joining this community. Do you have any more valuable tips, other than "get lost newbie"?
	▲	perching_aix 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		While that's fair, would be kinda nice if the title was consistent with the content, instead of being, say, "reach optimized" (populist), wouldn't it?

▲

TryingToBeNice 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The intro indeed doesn't sound too bad, but if you read into the underlying demands, the title is actually quite representative of what's going on here.

Specifically, the requirement to provide non-digital alternatives as well as control over relying parties (i.e. consumers of the 'digital ID' and/or 'age verification' APIs) makes all of this a non-starter.

I mean: non-digital alternatives to digital IDs? I guess that means that nobody should be forced to get a digital ID for access to essential government(-ish) services (like banking), and that's a valid point, but in the context of "stop killing the Internet" just obfuscates things.

And control over RPs beyond GDPR is just pushing it, again, quite on purpose.