European e-ID Announced

gbjbaanb writes in with a story about plans to introduce an electronic identity system in Europe. "On Wednesday, the European Commission published a strategy document aimed at setting up systems to protect children online. In the document — but not in the accompanying press release nor the citizens' summary — the Commission mentioned that it will soon propose a 'pan-European framework for electronic authentication,' full details will be announced on 30th May. The launch of the strategy follows a push to strengthen internet security in the EU. It also outlined legal measures to make it easier for people to use a single e-ID for online services across borders, which would underpin a move toward a pan-European framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature (Pefias) framework."

Comments

Mandatory

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problems with these systems is once they're in place they come up with the idea "Hey, why don't we mandate the usage of said systems to stop evil XYZ?"

Re:Mandatory

[c0mpliant]

I've become very skeptical of the entire EU project of the last few years. I thought it was democratically based, making rational decisions in the common interest of the people. Introducing common laws to help life easier for people across the EU by identifying areas where individual nations might not be as effective as a unit. But now in the last 5 years I've seen measure after measure which are raw power-grabs by the EU to try an mitigate the sovereignty of individual member states.

Now we have yet another measure to "save the children" because anyone who might be against such a measure is an evil kiddy fiddler. I highly expect this to become mandatory and sprawl into not just children but everyone needs to be on this system. Perhaps I've just become skeptical of my own government and politicians willingness to sign over our hard fought independence that anything the power hungry EU puts down now is another attempt to control the people of Europe under a single entity.

The article itself states that this is likely to become mandatory but that there no clear definitions regarding the limits of the system.

Re:Mandatory

[Theophany]

Meh. I was always told the EU was originally set up to stop Germany ever becoming too powerful again.

Well, that worked well didn't it.

Re:Mandatory

[sdnoob]

it is nice to see that the EU really isn't that much different than the good ol' US of A...

our government had a ~ 217 year head start in fucking things up so just give it some time, the EU will catch up in no time at the rate it's going.

Re:Mandatory

[cornjones]

Meh. I was always told the EU was originally set up to stop Germany ever becoming too powerful again.

Well, that worked well didn't it.

The fear being that Germany (or anybody that got too powerful) would start another war. Considering that we are in the longest time of European peace in recorded history... yeah, i would say it worked pretty well...

Re:Mandatory

[c0mpliant]

Germany is actually quite powerful economically at the moment, mainly because in the last 17 years its had an excess of capital due to the enormous trade surplus which its had thanks to the Euro and smaller nations now having the ability to buy German goods without having to worry about exchange rates between the Deutsche Mark and the Italian Lira, the Irish Punt, the Greek Drachma or the Portuguese escudo.

Now the problem for Germany came when their banks tried to use that surplus cash, they lent it out to institutions for practically nothing. These institions then could then lend to riskier and riskier prospects because the cost of the risk was so reduced by the cheap and availability of money being provided by German and other major European banks so that even if those risky loans collapsed, they could simply avail of the cheap money to correct for such fluctuations.

The EU didn't make Germany weaker, it made Europe stronger as a whole, until they started some high risk enterprises. I'm willing to say that I don't think the EU was designed from the start to become what its become today, but certain financial interests have a way of corrupting things to their way of thinking

Re:Mandatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize more often than not those "power grabs by the evil EU" are simply the member states' governments pushing unpopular laws through by the back door, then turning around and telling their populace "look, we don't want to do it, but we have to implement this EU directive"?

Re:Mandatory

[moeinvt]

That's very interesting. I hadn't looked at the EU from this perspective, but it appears that you could following the same trajectory as the USA. Be warned!

The USA (under The Constitution) began as a voluntary agreement between independent states. Exactly as you described, we delegated certain authorities to a central government in a few areas (e.g. a monetary system and military) where it seemed we could be more effective as a unit.

As you can see from our example, the system was ultimately corrupted to the point that we now suffer under the reign of a massive, self-serving central government which has trampled the sovereignty of the states to serve its own self interests.

You're absolutely right to be skeptical of your government and extremely wary of any attempted EU power grabs. I'd caution you not to allow the destruction of your existence as independent states.

Re:Mandatory

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Another real problem is when accounts get hacked/USB drives get misplaced/insert data breach here and the whole system is invalidated. And that's if you're even aware of the breach.

Re:Mandatory

[MightyMartian]

As events progress it's hard not to look at the EU and the Eurozone and see them as formative tools for a German dominated Europe. As the golden rule says, he who has the gold makes the rules.

Now admittedly Germany is backing into it, but one gets the feeling that the old Kaiser and Hitler got it wrong and that the best way to dominate Europe wasn't shooting, it was creating vast capital reserves and waiting for everyone else to become insolvent, so Germany can "save" them.

The Euro in particular is the most powerful weapon yet invented for German domination of Europe, and the French, rather than taking on the traditional role of counterweight, has become a lapdog.

Re:Mandatory

[c0mpliant]

The Nice Treaty, which formalised the two tier Europe, the introduction of the Euro and its centralised monetary policy, the aborted EU Constitution which was then morphed into the Lisbon Treaty, the Fiscal Compact treaty which will reduce a governments ability to adopt fiscal policy. These are just off the top of my head. Now, member states government have had to approve them and in my own national case, a referendum was put had to be run, but in each of them(bar the last one which is due to be voted on at the end of the month), the Irish people voted No, until they were told, no that was the wrong answer, vote again.

Government are so terrified by the loss of structural loans and trade loss that they are unwilling to challenge the EU on these thing, why run the risk of losing out on revenue, we'll sell our sovereignty instead, that has a far less tangible impact on our budgets... until now. Again in my own national case we're told, you have no choice, you need another bailout, do what we want or we pull the trigger on the economic gun to your head. Whatever about the individual directives the EU issues, the macro effects of EU policy is killing national sovereignty and soon we really will have no choice, that "the man in Brussels/Frankfurt" says we have to do it so we have to do it.

Re:Mandatory

[cayenne8]

But now in the last 5 years I've seen measure after measure which are raw power-grabs by the EU to try an mitigate the sovereignty of individual member states.

Quite analogous to the power grab by the Feds over the States in the US....

Re:Mandatory

[Asic Eng]

I thought it was democratically based

But it's not. If you want it to be democratically based you need to give the power to elected representatives instead of having positions of power filled by deals between national governments. Or alternatively transfer those powers back to the national governments so you have control via the national parliaments. As it is now specific EU issues like the one in the article aren't much discussed during national elections - because that's not the main topic - and not much during EU elections - because the EU parliament doesn't have much power.

We need to make up our minds where we want to take this - make a decision and stick with it.

Re:Mandatory

[Asic Eng]

because in the last 17 years its had an excess of capital due to the enormous trade surplus which its had thanks to the Euro

That seems far-fetched. Germany didn't exactly have a lot of trouble exporting it's goods before the Euro.

Re:Mandatory

[Hentes]

Well it was exactly in the past few years that the democratically elected EP has de facto seized power over the Union. I guess what you were trying to say is that the EU has become less federalistic over time, which is true, but the age of nationstates is over anyway and we should move on to a new era. Of course, care must be taken so that the increasing power of the Union doesn't get unchecked but the huge bureaucracy takes care of that for the moment. It's also unfair to blame the Union for a plan of a proposal, which may not even see the light, may get rejected or amended to lose its fangs. And why would you be happier with a more federalistic Union if you don't trust your own government to begin with?

Re:Mandatory

[c0mpliant]

Wrong, Germany suffered from a low trade surplus prior to the introduction of Euro in 2001, have a look at the historical balance of trade for Germany here. You can see very noticable climb in trade surplus. This was a direct result of the introduction of the Euro.

Re:Mandatory

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And that happened by *stopping* governments from tracking and controlling people and knowing, indeed, "permitting" all activities.

Wait. "Think of the children!" n/m. I'm sure you'll get it right this time, if 2000 years of history teaches us anything.

Re:Mandatory

[lordholm]

"Irish people voted No, until they were told, no that was the wrong answer, vote again."

This argument is really sickening, in a normal parliamentary setting a complex legal document will undergo scrutiny by the MPs, the MPs may then make amendments, so if they are against the initial proposition from the government, the amendments may make the proposition acceptable.

For plebiscites, the same thing should naturally hold. However, it is not practical to crowd source amendments (or protocols as they are usually called in a treaty setting), if you then have a referendum and it is a reasonably close call, what the heck is wrong with adopting a protocol that address the major issues that the people had with the treaty. There is nothing wrong with this, it is not re-asking the same question until you get a yes, but more like: Is this proposal acceptable for you? If not, what if we change this into this, would that be acceptable?

The main point of this, is that agreements, treaties and law in general can be modified to suite the different parties that are stakeholders in it. There is nothing undemocratic about having a second plebiscite if you change the question, or the text that you are voting about.

In the Lisbon treaty case, Ireland secured an amendment (protocol) that essentially made the treaty acceptable after it cleared up a number of major issues that the voters had with the initial text.

Re:Mandatory

[Anonymous Coward]

> we are in the longest time of European peace in recorded history
No we're not. The Bosnian War was just 17 years ago.

Re:Mandatory

[lordholm]

There is nothing wrong with the EU project as such, however there are several implementation bugs, like the lack of parliamentary control. However, the memberstate governments and the nationalists do not want to have parliamentary control over the Union as it a) would prevent governments from blaming the EU when they push through a directive in the council without proper scrutiny (i.e. the member state gov made the shit up, but blames the EU) or b) infringes on their sovereignty (not that sovereignty will matter if the Chinese rule Europe by divide and conquer). The latter group is especially interesting as they value sovereignty and complain that the EU is undemocratic, well... you cannot have both, so either they should shut up, admitting that they have a complete utterly flawed base for their arguments, or they should change the arguments into something like: "well, you know, we prefer sovereignty over democracy on EU level, so we will vote like this".

Of course, some of the "nationalists" want to abolish the EU (I have still not seen them admitting that you can have either sovereignty or democracy on EU level), and I am sure they will be very happy when Europe's states gets chopped up in pieces and divided between the Yanks, Chinese and the Indians.

Re:Mandatory

[mcgrew]

And why would you be happier with a more federalistic Union if you don't trust your own government to begin with?

Neither Governor Ryan nor Governor Blago would be in prison were it not for the Federal government. You think the Feds are corrupt? Have a look at Illinois' government.

Re:Mandatory

[Xest]

What makes you say all this? from my point of view the EU seems to come up with much saner laws than most individual member states.

Most states have signed up to ACTA for example yet the EU looks set to derail those signings. I suppose you can argue this infringes individual sovereignty but it's certainly not in a bad way - it implies the EU hasn't been corrupted by corporate interests to anywhere near the extent national governments have.

The same goes for things like consumer rights (mandatory 2 year warranties), data protection, privacy protection and so forth - they seem to be way ahead of any individual member state on all these things.

All governments come up with bad ideas but it doesn't meant they get implemented - this is no different, there seems to be no evidence this will actually go through or be the horror people here are suggesting rather than just some single-sign on for online based EU/government services across the EU. If it looks like ACTA can't even get passed in the EU I don't expect something as horrific as the UK's now scrapped ID card database which is what they're implying this will be to get through. People in the EU are just too effective at protesting these sorts of things, just as they were with ACTA.

Re:Mandatory

[painandgreed]

The USA (under The Constitution) began as a voluntary agreement between independent states. Exactly as you described, we delegated certain authorities to a central government in a few areas (e.g. a monetary system and military) where it seemed we could be more effective as a unit.

True, and at the time of creation or shortly after, it would most likely have been possible for a state to leave that agreement unilaterally without too much issue. However, over the years, things got more complicated as group funds and efforts were used for projects. What about the land of the Lousiana Purchase for example? What about Texas which had been added to the union after a war with Mexico to secure their borders and freedom paid for mostly with Northern money and lives just ten years before they left and started the American Civil War. The more and more one shares something, the harder and harder it gets to take your toys and go home because no one can really tell what are whose toys.

Re:Mandatory

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's an interesting theory. It will be even more interesting to see whether it survives the French presidential election and the next major round of elections in Germany. If M. Hollande wins the presidency and makes good on his position to renegotiate the current agreements on European finances, that could be serious political trouble for Frau Merkel, who is already facing an uphill struggle at the next election. If she fails to win another term, the two big powerhouses who have driven the austerity agenda will be gone.

If that happened, they would almost certainly have been replaced by politicians far more willing to tell Big Finance where to go, if that meant they could still put food on family dining tables and books children's schools. This would no doubt worry the international community and put a dampener on future investment, but ironically there is a variation of the too-big-to-fail argument that applies to Europe as a whole: even if several countries in Europe do renege on many of their debts, we're still talking about one of the biggest markets in the first world, and if the developing economies want to keep growing at anything close to their current pace, they're going to have to trade with Europe one way or another. Sure, they might always do it with one eye on their bank accounts and the other on the trustworthy faces of European governments, but the alternative is that Europe just sits there and stagnates for -- well, who knows how long for? -- and that doesn't help either Europe itself or any of its potential trading partners.

At some point, you have to admit that the entire system was screwed up, and the best thing to do is to knock it down and build it again. Economically, there is debate about whether we have reached that point and must accept the downsides of a write-off. Politically, a change of direction in the French and German governments could render the economics a moot point.

Re:Mandatory

[MightyMartian]

Oh come on. What happens if France repudiates th Franco-German relationship. It goes broke in a hurry. France needs that German economic engine just as much as the PIIGS (which is awfully close to including Belgium and the Netherlands as well). The only thing that will stop this is the German voter deciding they don't want to back the scheme. That may very well happen. But France, she's in no position to negotiate anything. If the Germans decide to pull back, France will almost instantly become a catastrophe.

I don't think people realize just how much the Euro is just basically the Deutsche Mark by another name. For centuries everyone realized Germany, one way or the other, was going to dominate Europe. It had the higher population, that peculiar German workthrift culture, all playing together that the only things keeping it in check was disunity. After Germany unified, all of a sudden France and Britain join together in the Entente Cordiale, but France has pretty much repudiated that now and made its bed with Germany. Maybe not a bad choice, if the Germans don't walk, it means France becomes the junior partner in a Franco-German empire, but if either repudiates that relationship, France is in deep deep trouble.

Re:Mandatory

[tkalfigo]

You are joking, right? Just because you don't see marching tanks in the streets, doesn't mean it's not a form of war. Let alone Germany that would under no circumstances allow it's name be blemished with YAW. But don't kid yourself; that's the new form of warfare: absolute and transparent financial control.

Re:Mandatory

[Xamataca]

absolute and transparent financial control.

Just for clarification...

Let's get Godwin out of the way

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ihre papiere bitte?

Now, feel free to carry on with a sensible discussion of the merits and pitfalls without resulting to overused memes and trolling.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a child, i don't need protection. Thank you.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[foobsr]

Ihre papiere bitte?

Yet, it is still capitalized 'Papiere', which is also indicated by the fact that one pays Euro 28,80 for a German identity card ('Bundespersonalausweis', obligatory). Add at least Euro 6,00 for a biometric photo. I had pay do this today and I am totally pissed.

I wonder how much 'they' will charge for an eId.

CC.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[knorthern knight]

The ID numbers will be self-validating. The checksum will always be 666.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[JaredOfEuropa]

The Dutch solution: just use some existing authentication scheme. A few days ago, CapGemini proposed a report to our government, and one of the proposals in it was to see if we could integrate DigiD with.... wait for it.... Facebook Connect (article in Dutch). DigiD is a digital identity scheme used by citizens to access Dutch government services like internal revenue and municipal services which require authentication. Hey, at least a Facebook account is free, right?

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[JaredOfEuropa]

I would like to propose that "for the children" becomes the new Godwin. If you utter the phrase, the discussion is over, and you've lost the debate automatically.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[foobsr]

we could integrate DigiD with....

Is that really what you want? What this will boil down to is a (European) law that requires you and providers to only use the 'official' eId for authentification. No more privacy, no anonymity, big brother can log in everywhere you are.

CC.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[jps25]

Only partially true.
It is only mandatory to be able to identify yourself.
Whether you do this with a Personalausweis or a Reisepass ("passport") is up to you.
Unless you require a passport for your travels, the Personalausweis is the cheaper alternative.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[cayenne8]

I'm not a child, i don't need protection. Thank you.

*BZZT* Wrong answer....but thanks for playing.

For your consolation prize, please report to room 101 down at the end of the hall....and please, try to remember who you love....

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[Gilmoure]

What? Facebook login's not good enough?

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[Gilmoure]

"it's the worst thing in the world."

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[elewton]

I am quite capable of identifying myself, when I choose to, with my speech alone.

The papieren are for the verification of my identity by a third party for the other agent in the transaction. These agents compel citizens to carry third party verification and can compel transactions.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[jps25]

If you're claiming that one has to carry the Ausweis or the passport on one's person, then you're wrong.
In any case, you're a cute one.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[gstoddart]

I would like to propose that "for the children" becomes the new Godwin. If you utter the phrase, the discussion is over, and you've lost the debate automatically.

Except, it seems to operate in reverse.

From a legal standpoint, once someone says "for the children", they win. The rest of us are just nutters at that point since it's not about rational debate any more.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way

[emj]

I haven't seen a Swedish ID card for less than 45 euros, and I think passports and national ID cards are about 55 euros. Not that much more than the 40 euros you pay in Germany, but it still too much money for a collection of useless security features..

Its about tracking and logging

[GeneralTurgidson]

Authentication is just a requirement of those two.

Re:Its about tracking and logging

[JaredOfEuropa]

What if authentication becomes mandatory for public sites (such as Slashdot)? I don't want to authenticate with my true identity, but I still want to use those services, and I have very good reason to not always post stuff under my true name. Not to hide stuff from the government, and I am actually OK with the authorities obtaining certain digital info on me, if I am suspect in a crime, and if a judge issues a "digital search warrant" (Of course neither condition will be added to this proposal, in NL they don't even need court approval anymore to search my house, for crying out loud). It is often in my best interest if my employer does not know what I post on the Web, and sometimes it is also in my employer's best interest if people who read my stuff do not know whom I work for.

Re:Its about tracking and logging

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

What's the EU going to do with tracking and logging that Doubleclick isn't already doing?

Re:on thursday

[sleiper]

The only way to make any of these ID's secure is to have them linked to faces and biometrics, which are quickly accessible, and require both human and computer verifications. eg, put your thumb here Mr Up-To-Know-Good and let me check the fingerprints we have had on file since you were born, along with the drivers licence and passport we have on file for you, and any other data we have kept on you over the years. My problem with this system is, you can't have one without the other, and do we really want the other?

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published

[bmo]

strategy document aimed at setting up systems to protect children online

We should call the people who repeatedly propose this crap Internet Quislings.

--
BMO

Children Don't Need Protection

[erroneus]

Children need to be taught. They should be taught by their parents.

Once those two things are done properly, the need for "protection" diminishes to nearly zero.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really about children at all. It's about control. Those in power want control to see and hear everything you do, they are simply using your children as a way to sell the idea.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Luckyo]

That is of course, until opium in your veins runs out and you return to wonderful reality where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse then from pretty much all other factors, unless they live in a third world country.

A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Kidbro]

Good thing the politicians are making sure to protect the children against... online... parental abuse, then. Yeah.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Luckyo]

Why do you think the talk is focused on less then 10% of total child abuse that is sourced from outside family rather then 90% that is inside family?

One wins votes of concerned parents. Other pisses both guilty and innocent parents off.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[BootysnapChristAlive]

where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse

I suspect it isn't much of a threat, since a grand majority of people aren't murderers/rapists/abusers.

A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.

Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to want to be free from corrupt governments? Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to accept that some casualties happen, but not everyone needs to be punished/harassed by the government because of it?

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Luckyo]

Strawmen don't do opiate smoking. Existential hazard with all the dry straw.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[Luckyo]

By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents. Yet another rather nasty piece of reality for you.

Also, yes, it is. Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent. The only non-oppressing form of governing is anarchy. Every other form is oppressive to varying extent, because to exert control is to oppress freedom to not be controlled.

We have a very good example of how that works in Somalia. Power vacuum left by government will simply be filled in other ways, typically far more oppressive. They just won't be called "government". That's the reality of the libertarian dream, and why libertarian dream is in fact a pipe dream as proven by history of humanity thousands of times over. Like communism, it would work very if people were beings naturally inclined to think of greater good over short term personal benefit.

Alas...

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[BootysnapChristAlive]

By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents.

Yes...?

Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent.

Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. But that absolutely does not mean we should give them unlimited power. What power we do give them must be necessary and small. We must never let them engage in collective punishment (even if it's "for the children"), and we must never let them infringe upon our rights (again, even if it's "for the children").

Then again, I'm not really sure what your point was. But I've seen people who believe that because the government has the ability to do X, it should also have the ability to do Y (even if X and Y are quite different and one is a more oppressive power than the other), too.

We have a very good example of how that works in Somalia.

The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.

Like communism, it would work very if people were beings naturally inclined to think of greater good over short term personal benefit.

And that's exactly why giving the government too much power is a bad thing (note that I said "too much"). This has more to do with human nature and history. We've all seen just how much damage governments (and a complete lack of government, for that matter) can do.

I think it becomes a problem when the government is harassing entire groups of people (in this hypothetical case, parents) because of what a minority of them do.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection

[triffid_98]

The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.

Somalia is full of dirty pirates. According to the sponsors of SOPA, the US is also full of dirty pirates. Therefore US=Somalia.

Pefias

[Yebyen]

Does anyone have any details on Pefias? (Is it an acronym, what does it stand for)

Have they been developing it in secret? All I can find is some Spanish text, perhaps it's a Spanish word? And some diplomat who is convinced that "only [this] Pefias" can provide what they need. So, developed in secret.

Re:Pefias

[Yebyen]

From the summary, not even TFA:

"...a pan-European framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature (Pefias) framework."

Sheesh.

OK, so it's an acronym.

Anything else? "Unveiled this month" -- the summary of the article says Pefias, the linked PDF from the article does not use this acronym, or the expression it's derived from. The PDF does say "pan-European framework for electronic authentication" but not the longer version that explains the spelling of the acronym.

I was really looking for technical information. You know, like is it any different from PGP? Is there any reason it can't be made global? Will this card get me a discount at bars, if I sign up?

And, in other news...

[DeathToBill]

The UK Border Agency's biometrics system crashed on Thursday, leaving hundreds of previously-legal UK residents without the right to live or work there...

No, I can't see anything that could go wrong.

A modest proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading a few paragraphs from the draft... i have a proposition for our EU overlords.

Instead of doing this, invest our money into cloning. Build a huge facility, supply enough funds to advance the research to point where human cloning is possible - then get your own clone. Establish a friendship with your clones, then take them out and treat them to a romantic dinner. After the dinner you should of course invite them back to your place, where you'd be finally able to go fuck yourself.

Trying to create excessively child-friendly world will result in having a world uninhabitable by adults. So yea, go fuck yourself.

Re:on thursday

[PopeRatzo]

My problem with this system is, you can't have one without the other, and do we really want the other?

Nobody asked what you want. This is about corporate control, pure and simple. They're not looking to protect you, they're looking to exploit you.

See, anonymity on the Internet is causing lost profits, and we cannot have that. When the Internet became a shopping mall, control was given over to the corporations, and now it's all about what they want. And they want to know exactly who you are and exactly what you're up to.

Re:Thread over.

[Hyperhaplo]

I am very sure that the dead horse is good for another round.

Native American Indian philosophy is that when your horse dies you should jump off.

In modern corporate society this is not the case. After all, the horse is a company asset and ... We can lower the requirements and state that the dead horse its in fact exceeding expectations ... We can claim the dead horse as a tax write off and send it on retraining ... We can promote the dead horse to management and submit it a fine example of the breadth of our equity and diversity program ... We can classify being dead as the perfect state of calm and transfer the horse to manager of HR

this could go on..... I am sure that with this crowd not only can we spend days flogging this dead horse... But we can do it creatively and in techno geek style

Now.. I am late for a meeting to fire a jockey for allowing his mount to.die...

These people won't give up until you need a licence to use the internet. At that point we will need a new internet.

Commission's plan to propose an e-ID announced

[Hentes]

At this point the whole post is pure speculation, the Commission may not even try to push it, and if it does it still has to go through the EP.

The devil is in the details.

[master_p]

It can be an easy-to-use system that is not obligatory for everything, just for government-related tasks, or it could be obligatory just to browse. In the latter case, it is certainly about surveillance and big brother, rather than anything else.

Finally... but not far enough

[staalmannen]

As a European citizen (Swede) working in another country (Belgium), I have often felt that there are a couple of things that actually would do well to get centralized at a EU level. One such thing would be the social security number. All the sillyness that you have to go through before you get a local ID card and then that you have to carry two ID cards, one for each country, makes it rather strange. Especially upon repatriation when social security is transferred and you somehow have to show that the person with one ID is the same as the one with the other ID. There are several other examples of stuff that are still national that simply would be better to put at a federal level (and other things that would be better to transfer down to regional level).

Re:Finally... but not far enough

[Anonymous Coward]

All the sillyness that you have to go through before you get a local ID card and then that you have to carry two ID cards, one for each country, makes it rather strange.

It's not even that consistent. As a British citizen living in Spain I'm unable to get a Spanish ID card, and the UK doesn't have them, so technically I should carry my passport on me at all times. And not only are the social security systems completely disconnected, but during 18 months when I was resident in Spain and working remotely for a British company I fell through the gaps - not employed by a Spanish company, so not in the Spanish social security system, and not resident in the UK, so not in the British social security system. We may have the right to live and work where we please, but that right doesn't come with a guarantee that the relevant bureaucracies will cope.

Re:Finally... but not far enough

[the eric conspiracy]

It's a choice Europe makes to keep political units that make sense when most people were serfs tied to the land. Sooner or later old divisions I'd think these will go away.

Probably later.

Already happening

[thyristor pt]

There is nothing (new) to be afraid of. Many countries in Europe are already establishing their own citizen's online identification framework for state services. This document only defines the need for all the systems to be inter-operative. Enough with the Big Brother mambo-jambo.

Re:Already happening

[IndustrialComplex]

I can pay my bills online now without an eID. I actually wouldn't mind if someone faked my identity to pay off my tax bills.

Why would I want everything about me unified? I use different logins so people CANT consolidate everythibg about me.

Actually DO WANT

[Yvanhoe]

This, a state-certified way of proving identity and therefore making a system able to enforce the unity of online votes is a game changer for the democratic game.

Forget about identification files and think a minute about it before throwing Godwin points : even without that, states can enforce identity controls very easily with very little overseeing.

Re:on thursday

[JasterBobaMereel]

There is no way to make these secure, biometrics do not work well enough and probably never will, no matter what the manufacturers of biometric readers would say

The supposedly hyper-secure completely unfakeable biometric passports were shown off in the USA at a security conference by the the firm who designed it, they had a reader setup to show all the details of a person on a sample passport, and then someone walked in with a passport that was accepted by the system as genuine, for Elvis ....

Currently I don't need a secure ID to access the internet, and I suspect that many devices will not be able to use this ... why do I need this...?

e-ID required to vote

[bazonic]

Once we have e-IDs and the children are protected, the next logical step is to hold elections online.

Nothing could go wrong with that.

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, let's create a new -philia! Everybody loves those things!

Depophilia - the over protection of children at the detriment to their growth.
ex. "You are such a depo, your kid is going to be a 40 year old virgin at this rate."
ex2. "If you keep holding your kid in and hiding him from everything, he'll never grow up." (there are people who are genuinely like this and spit children out their holes just because they like to have kids around)

I deliberately made it reverse of Pedo so that it gains enough notice and have people screaming and burning down buildings to find those responsible for hurting these poor kids during aging.

Spread it around. Let's have another philia pandemic. I, for one, think we can't have enough of them.

Re:on thursday

[Yvan256]

they want to know exactly who you are and exactly what you're up to.

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Here Comes the Mark of the Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
(Revelation 13:16-18)

Every day...

[Notlupus]

Every day I live in this country on this continent, I read the news and I get depressed, angered and scared. You can say what you want but if this bullshit keeps continuing we will be living in George Orwells 2012, I guarantee it.

Re:Every day...

[IndustrialComplex]

Oh pish posh.

You aren't going to see an orwellian dystopia. So stop worrying.

Be brave.
Don't fear what is new.
No orwellian gov will run this world.

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published

[lennier1]

As much as I disagree with some of the man's decisions, Reagan once summed it up quite nicely:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Numbers Are Awesome!

[tunapez]

I'll tattoo mine on my forearm. 'Never forget', right?

Re:Numbers Are Awesome!

[mxbradley]

Naw, it'll be on your right hand, or forehead, see Revelation 13:16-18.

Chip failure

[findoutmoretoday]

E-id, knowing what was going to happen i waited one year to get mine, 40 months later the chip broke, i had to ask pre internet paper forms to fill in a tax form. Replacing it is free if i am happy with three visits to the administration and one month of patience. For 250€ i can get a next day copy. Am i still a citizen without my chip?

A little offtopic, but...

[davidshewitt]

The other day, I was pondering using a universal system of public-key authentication for all financial transactions. Our current system is basically sharing a "secret" in order to authorize a transaction, whether it be a credit card number, a bank account number (in the case of checks or wire transfers), or a social security number (in the case of loans). Using a public key system (where the private key is difficult to compromise) to sign transactions would greatly limit the number of transactions that an identity thief could make, since the holder of the private key would have to be aware of the transactions. I'm not saying keeping the private key private is easy, but I think it is possible to find a solution that works well enough. (To give credit, I read about this idea somewhere; it's not mine.)

Back on topic, the government would probably be the entity to implement such a solution. While it would be great to reduce identity theft, there is also much potential for abuse. It could be required for access to the internet, for example. Even if a law was created saying that this system could only be used for financial transactions, we know how well that worked with Social Security numbers being only for Social Security. Any thoughts on this?

Standard Political Bullsh*t

[StoneyMahoney]

"Think of the children!"

Yeah, I'm thinking of them growing up and voting yo punk ass into oblivion.

That's it.

[aristotle-dude]

I will renounce my citizenship if this goes through.

It's typical for the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

That i have to read this news on an American website.

goal of setting up the EU

[1800maxim]

But now in the last 5 years I've seen measure after measure which are raw power-grabs by the EU to try an mitigate the sovereignty of individual member states.

What makes you think that wasn't the goal from the beginning?

Re:on thursday

[lordholm]

Actually, the Commission do usually ask before they start writing directives. They tend to request comments from the public, though the public is in general not aware of this.

Whether they did so in this case, I have no idea, but I would not claim that they haven't asked the public without double checking that first.

Why is this an issue?

[csumpi]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue for or against, just looking for some more understanding.

Why is having to use an e-id an issue? Most people have already given up their identity and all personal information willingly on social/cloud services.

Is it that The Zuck/Sergei/Tim Cook/Bezos/Ballmer/... looks more trustworthy than the government to have all that information? I mean it is feasible that the government could actually use the data for something good like stopping a terrorist attack or pinching some child molester's butt.

Is it that using social media seems like a choice? It could be argued that social services are a must also because of peer pressure/addiction to the feeling of popularity.

Is it that people just don't realize that they give all their information to those corporation, including addresses, credit card numbers, what they like and what they don't, their party/naked photos, images of their families, what they do when?

Or are the objections only from people who oppose and don't use social media either?

If one's not ok, why is the other one?

   

Re:Why is this an issue?

[tnk1]

Why is having to use an e-id an issue? Most people have already given up their identity and all personal information willingly on social/cloud services.

Because it's not the same thing. Yes, millions of stupid people have given all that information away on their pages. I have not. Are you saying that its okay that I can't have my privacy because the rest of the population is too ignorant to protect theirs?

The worst part about this is: No Child Was Protected In the Making of This Provision.

I mean, sure kiddy porn shows up on the internet, but the Internet isn't what produces it. Sickos with cameras and access to children do that. The children are not hurt by bits flying around the Internet, they are hurt by *being abused in the course of making child pornography*. None of that abuse happens on the Internet. The worst thing that would happen is someone might recognize them later in life, but even then, who would admit in public that they saw you in illegal pornography?

And how would an e-id stop people from obtaining and paying for kiddy porn, or even prevent kids from looking at otherwise legal pornography? It can't. It's not like people are running out and writing personal checks to pornographers to get their materials. That's why they bothered setting up places on TOR and use things like Bitcoins to begin with.

In short, this does nothing at all to protect children. Ever. I'm not even sure how it *could*.

This may well not be some diabolical plan to take away liberties, but it is probably the next worst thing: a plot to remove inconvenience to centralized bureaucracies in the name of some bogus cause.

e-ID already exists in Belgium

[houghi]

In Belgium this is nothing new. We already have it. I hope they will adapt the Belgian type as it is open source, everybody can write programs and/or get a reader to see what is on it.
And with Open Source I mean Windows, Mac and Linux can read your software.
http://eid.belgium.be/en/ and direct link to the developer stuff:
http://eid.belgium.be/en/developing_eid_applications/eid_software_development_kit/
Want an add-on for Firefox? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/belgium-eid/

In Belgium it is already law to have an ID on you.
Besides alcohol control and once running a red light (Got a warning, not a ticket for the red light. Got a key chain for the negative alcohol control) I am one of the few people that I know who has been stopped by police at what looked at random.

I gave my papers, they checked them and then gave them back. A day later I saw them doing the same to a guy who was dressed similar like me the day before with a similar build and haircut, so they were clearly looking for somebody specific.

The only downside at this moment is that the law did not caught up yet. So for many contracts we still need to send in a signed paper. No scanning and no faxing. In other countries the same can be done by a mere phone call.

If they would allow the e-ID as a rightful signature, that would help a lot. The technoligy already exists.

Re:e-ID already exists in Belgium

[houghi]

If the police stop and ask me, I tell them who I am. I ask who they are. I don't demand to see papers that prove it.

If police stops me, I ask them for ID. Have done so a few times.

Re:e-ID already exists in Belgium

[Cederic]

You telling the police "I'm not a gut who robbed that bank" is not the same as having an ID that easily proves that.

Oh, I do apologise - I hadn't realised that bank robbers have to show valid ID as part of committing the crime. Because lets face it, that's the only way that having a different ID paper easily proves you aren't the one.

What the fuck makes you think ID actually helps? You can't get much more personally identifying than DNA, and knowing exactly who is was is what caused this guy six months in prison for a crime he didn't commit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17953266

Personally I think anonymity is important. I've been in East Germany and seen the effects of pervasive surveillance and I don't like it.

Route around it?

[dutchwhizzman]

The Internet has been made to detect problems and route around it. It has always done so and will probably do so again with this silly proposal. Blocking websites hasn't worked one bit, blocking P2P traffic has proven impossible and now they want people to only get online if they give up their anonymity? I doubt this is going to ever get air borne if no website except a few government sites will ever require it.

Why this is an issue.

[professorguy]

Because "The Zuck" cannot go into a back room and pass a law which makes you a criminal based on the data in your record. A government can. And then it's too late to go back and NOT give over the data....

Re:Why this is an issue.

[csumpi]

And you don't think that The Zuck would give up the data if the government asked for it? Or that Sergei's not taking on government contracts?

It seems to me that the sole purpose of data collection is to sell that data. Or am I missing something?

Re:on thursday

[PopeRatzo]

Actually, the Commission do usually ask before they start writing directives. They tend to request comments from the public, though the public is in general not aware of this.

Yes, they ask you to write your comment on a sheet of A4 paper, fold it four ways and then place it where the sun don't shine.

There's a reason why the public in general is not aware of the "request for comments". Because it's a joke, a bit of theater to make you believe your opinion matters. Do you believe people are just crying out for greater controls over what they do on the Internet?