Slashdot Mirror
EU Exploring Idea of Using Government ID Cards As Mandatory Online Logins (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Softpedia: Fears that fake online reviews might ruin the consumer market and damage legitimate businesses are making the European Commission consider the idea of forcing all EU citizens to log into online accounts using their government-issued ID cards. Details about these plans can be found in a proposal named "Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges," announced on May 25, 2016. According to this document, "online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognized by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards." The reasoning, according to the EU, is that "online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews."
Yeah exploring ideas is really horrible. Meanwhile, have you explored the idea (gasp) that leaving the EU would have financial consequences for the UK?
Derp. Yeah, since it's not YOUR wallet, it's such a simple matter of principle from an ocean away...
The Fine Document says:
which sounds like it would, at most, require "online platforms" to allow the use of national ID cards as credentials, but says nothing about requiring users to use them as credentials.
The relevant section is (with my emphasis):
As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
This was even quoted in the Softpedia article, although somehow spun to mean the proposal was about "forcing EU citizens to use their real identities" rather than (as the article said) about giving them choice. The only mandating being proposed here is on the online platforms themselves.
As to the part about online reviews, although following on from the above, seems to be a separate issue being discussed.
Greater transparency is also needed for users to understand how the information presented to them is filtered, shaped or personalised, especially when this information forms the basis of purchasing decisions or influences their participation in civic or democratic life. If consumers are properly informed of the nature of the products that they view or consume online, this assists the efficient functioning of markets and consumer welfare.
Online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews, where loss of trust can undermine the business model of the platform itself, but also lead to a wider loss of trust, as expressed in many responses to the public consultation.
Both the above quotes are from a section subtitles "Fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness - Informing and empowering citizens and consumers".
As to what the commission proposes, it states (with emphasis from document):
In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation 39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own.
In the context of the continued dialogue with all stakeholders, the Commission encourages industry to step up voluntary efforts, which the Commission will undertake to assist in framing, to prevent trust-diminishing practices, in particular — but not limited — to tackle fake or misleading online reviews.
The problem here is not the EU communication or proposal, it is the reporting spin being given to it, as in the Softpedia article.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
There was nothing in the EU Commission communication about making it mandatory (for the consumer). That was the spin put on by the Softpedia article. The Commission proposal was about consumer choice as to the credentials they use, including National ID Cards.
The only part can could be construed as 'mandatory' was the proposal to 'encourage' online platforms to accept these other forms of eID as valid.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
So let's see, where does the UK make most of it's trade? Exactly: With other EU countries.
Now after the Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate new trade deals with the EU. This will take years, as the EU will have no reasson to give the UK any preferential deals.
The UK could go the route Norway has taken, but that would mean aggreeing to rules that the EU has set, without any chance to influence the making of said rules.
Wrong on both accounts. If UK wants to keep access to the EU market, they still will have to pay into the EU budget and follow the EU laws and regulations,but without the benefit of being able to vote, just like Norway and Switzerland. This is why i am in favour with Brexit - so the brits will finally lose their special privileges and can't introduce more stupid laws tailored for their financial industry protection.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
As usual this is the tech media completely failing at politics, as it does with just about every proposed bill related to technology ever.
I don't really have any idea how the word "mandatory" made it into the headline of the Slashdot, or original article because it's completely fabricated.
All that's being talked about is an optional government backed verified user scheme so that someone submitting a review can choose whether they want to add their official verification to it or not. It'd be up to sites then to determine how they weight verified reviews, some may choose to only allow submitting verified reviews, others might treat verified reviews no different to anonymous reviews other than to shove a little visual verified flag on the review, and others again may list verified reviews top, or only include verified ratings in overall averages whilst leaving anonymous reviews visible or some combination thereof.
This is why Slashdot has become so irrelevant in the world today, it spends so much of it's time arguing about bad political ideas that aren't even being proposed. There are certainly bad sides to things like the right to be forgotten, RIPA, and so on, and yet Slashdot regularly argues against and refers to provisions that simply just don't even exist within them which begs the question, what's the point? If we argued against actual bad parts of legislation then there may be some value, but arguing aganist things that aren't real as is the case here, making absurd comparisons between the EU and China based on nothing other than the fact you've grossly misunderstood the proposal because all you did was read the incorrect headline is just a completely nonsensical waste of time.
Slashdot might as well give up on politics related posts, because everytime something political is published here it's rife with misunderstanding, and people start expressing their outrage at things that aren't even proposed or law.
People on Slashdot have long railed against propaganda, and misleading headlines, and yet here they are falling for exactly that every single time a political story is posted to Slashdot that's factually incorrect. You think you're all independent thinkers, you think you're smart, but you repeatedly all fall for this propaganda, you see a headline and jump on it arguing against it and so arguing against the institution behind it, and that's exactly what the europhobes that created the original false headline about it being mandatory wanted you to do. You're suckers to the propaganda, you're unthinking sheep to the machine. You fell for this misleading headline hook, line, and sinker, and did what they wanted you to do - you extended it to argue against the EU as a whole based on a completely fabricated falsehood.
Question more and parrot less, and perhaps you'll be able to raise the level of intellectual debate on this site to where it used to be. No one gives a shit about arguments against things that aren't even true because they're entirely meaningless.
The problem with this argument often parroted by Brexiters is that it assumes that the only factors at play are trade between Britain and the rest of the EU as single entities in isolation.
But the problem is more complex than that, the danger for the EU is that if Britain leaves and gets a sweatheart deal, that other countries will question why they're even in the EU if they can get better deals with the EU outside. This will mean other nations will quit, it means red tape between nations in the EU will increase, and it means that any benefit to retaining trade with the UK on terms favourable to the UK is lost.
Yes, it will hurt Germany and France to see decreased trade with the UK, but it'll hurt them even more if other nations leave the EU and become more expensive to trade with. This isn't a risk Germany and France are willing to take, so they'll accept the blow on decreased trade with the UK to make sure that the rest of the EU is kept together such that trade there remains efficient and strong.
For France and Germany the calculation isn't simply a yes/no question of "Do we want to retain trade with the UK at current levels?", it's "What's worse, losing some trade with the UK, or dealing with the risk and associated costs of potential collapse of the EU in general?". I think it's pretty obvious what they're going to choose, the loss of trade with us is small fry compared to widespread departures from the EU and the costly disentanglements that would entail. Sacrificing trade with us to punish us is a price well worth paying to them if the alternative is to see massive damage to the EU and the greater costs to them that that would result in.
Anyone simplifying it as simply cutting their nose off to spite their face, and that they wouldn't do that because they want the income from UK trade is both economically and politically illiterate because the alternative has an even greater cost to them. They'll make sure Brexit hurts not simply to spite the UK, but to protect themselves - they're always going to put their interests before the UK's if the UK decides to shun them. It's nonsensical to believe they'd do the UK a favour at massive risk to their own wellbeing.
The article is lying about the proposal when it says that the European Commission is considering forcing all EU citizens to log into online accounts using their government-issued ID cards. That is not true. What the proposal really says (page 10) is:
However, the frequent practice of using oneâ(TM)s platform profile to access a range of websites and services often involves non-transparent exchanges and cross-linkages of personal data between various online platforms and websites. As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards. In other words: it wants to let consumers choose which authentication method they use, and they suggest online platforms should accept credencials issued by national authorities.
And why do they want the consumers to be able to use those credentials? Because (page 10):
It is recognised that a multitude of username and password combinations is both inconvenient and a security risk.
I wonder why the EU hating camp usually resorts to such dishonest bashing tactics (as if they weren't actual reasons to criticize the EU without having to spread lies).
Part of being in the EU means that you can't do individual trade deals with other countries any more. The EU negotiates on your behalf, and all members get the same deal. This is one of the point of contention with the Leave campaign, they think we could negotiate good deals with countries like China if we were allowed to.
Of course, the reason the EU doesn't negotiate a free trade deal with China is because it doesn't want to start a race to the bottom. It doesn't want to be competing freely with Chinese wages. It doesn't want to be competing directly with Chinese environmental standards and product safety levels. The Leave campaign is mostly rich people who would stand to gain a lot by driving down UK wages and conditions in the name of "making us more competitive". They have been quite clear that this is their goal, it's repeated often in debates and in propaganda.
Being part of the EU means you become part of a larger democracy. So for example sometimes we get out-voted on rule changes that we don't like, although about 90% of the time we get our way. That's how EU politics work, compromise until the solution is acceptable to the vast majority. Member states also have a veto over some major changes, like letting new countries join or the transfer of additional powers.
The EU can pass directives, which member states then have to translate into their own laws. The EU monitors states for compliance. The main goal here is to create a level playing field where anyone can export to any other EU state with minimal effort and red tape, because the rules are the same everywhere.
Being part of the EU requires accepting certain principals. You have to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was largely written by the UK but which the UK now blames for stuff like not being able to send people overseas for torture or unfair imprisonment. The other big principal is freedom of movement, for goods, services, currency and people.
The free movement of people causes the most concern, as it means that e.g. UK citizens can go and work anywhere in the EU with minimal hassle and without a visa, and that Polish people can come to the UK to do the same. This has resulted in, for example, over 750,000 British people going to live in Spain (nice weather, low cost of living, and they can use Spanish healthcare facilities on the same terms as Spanish people). However, most economists see freedom of movement as a positive thing, with real economic gains.
Hope that answers your questions.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC