Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European e-ID Announced

Posted by samzenpus on from the papers-please dept.

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."

43 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?"

    1. Re:Mandatory by c0mpliant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    2. Re:Mandatory by Theophany · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Mandatory by cornjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:Mandatory by c0mpliant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    5. Re:Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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"?

    6. Re:Mandatory by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Mandatory by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Mandatory by c0mpliant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    9. Re:Mandatory by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Mandatory by Hentes · · Score: 2

      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?

    11. Re:Mandatory by c0mpliant · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    12. Re:Mandatory by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Mandatory by lordholm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    14. Re:Mandatory by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    15. Re:Mandatory by Xest · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:Mandatory by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Let's get Godwin out of the way by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way by foobsr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  3. Its about tracking and logging by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Authentication is just a requirement of those two.

  4. Re:on thursday by sleiper · · Score: 2

    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?

  5. Children Don't Need Protection by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Children Don't Need Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Children Don't Need Protection by Luckyo · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Children Don't Need Protection by Luckyo · · Score: 3

      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...

    4. Re:Children Don't Need Protection by BootysnapChristAlive · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Children Don't Need Protection by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. And, in other news... by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  7. Re:on thursday by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:Thread over. by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  9. Commission's plan to propose an e-ID announced by Hentes · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Finally... but not far enough by staalmannen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:Finally... but not far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  11. Already happening by thyristor+pt · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. Actually DO WANT by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  13. e-ID required to vote by bazonic · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Re:on thursday by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Numbers Are Awesome! by tunapez · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  16. A little offtopic, but... by davidshewitt · · Score: 2

    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?

  17. It's typical for the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  18. e-ID already exists in Belgium by houghi · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.