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."
While I think that, since we're all carrying chip & pin cards, that they should be useable as login credentials, they should not, in any way, be mandatory.
This is clearly a diversion; they just want everyone online logged.
Store reviews only? Come on.
Any British citizens that don't vote for Brexit with this sort of shit going on must be masochists.
First they came for the reviews, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the online blogs, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the shoppers, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for slashdotters, and I did not speak out,
And there was nobody left to speak for me.
Because nothing helps the spread of knowledge and information like Big Brother watching every single thing that we do :|
I limit what I see and do on the internet based on the assumption that the Government is watching everything that we do already. :| )
( And I'm so damned boring I don't even break any laws
Once / if it becomes mandatory to log in with a Government approved ID card, I'll just cease using the internet at all.
My generation ( X ) is the last one who can remember a life without it. Considering the current state of the web as an advertising,
surveillance and malware distribution platform, I can't say I would miss it much.
that would be fine with me, every website i visit i put in my real name and driver's licence number for a password, and it is the same at every website i visit because they confirm it at a government database, i get tired of remembering passwords for every website i visit, plus sometimes i have to wipe my /home/user_name/* stuff because of old corrupted files or i upgrade or switch software or Linux distros, that way if i ever need to enter that info because my browser config got wiped i just pull out my drivers license and enter my licence number and BAM! every website i visit knows who i am
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...to make sure reviews are accurate. They aren't (nor should they be) the ones running the websites which record and display these reviews. Those websites are the ones who are responsible for making sure the reviews are real. The ones who do the best job are most likely to gain the most users.
It's called the free market. Let it happen, EU.
Of course I'm completely aware that review quality is not the reason behind this proposition, but it makes no sense that they would think that such a justification would make sense.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
If this is such a great benefit for the consumer, then surely everyone will want to use one and making them "mandatory" is unnecessary.
Consumer reviews are being cited as the reason for destroying anonymity online? That is the most fake reason for central control of your lifes ever invented. Never mind the 'think of the children', never mind 'terrorist', but 'consumer reviews'????? Shit. The real reason is not failing in line, not doing what some politician tells you, not paying tax on everything under the sun, leaking information exposing government corruption (oxymoron, government IS corruption by definition of the word), embarrassing some government official online, etc. Consumer reviews have nothing to do with anything.
EU was set up yo fix problems that apparently could not be fixed by individual governments. So to fix problems of governments a super government was set up. As if two wrongs can make a right. The reality is that people need less centralization not more, this includes centralization of government. It is better to have 1000 small corrupt governments that can be dealt with individually and that present competition to each other corruption than 1 massive super government that is the final authority, it is of-course also corrupt and there is no competition and no escape from it anywhere. Most people are actually stupid, so naturally many of the stupid people think the government should exist and be as massive and powerful as possible to 'protect' them from all the life's issues. What the stupid don't understand is that the massive government 'protects' them from life and gives them prison instead.
You can't handle the truth.
If Amazon or eBay or Google wanted to adopt true name policies for online reviews, they could already do that (in fact, a few of them have "verified identities" and identify reviews with them). No national ID is needed, they just get it from the credit card info and verifying purchases. Obviously, they have decided that allowing pseudonymous reviews is better.
And unless you are a total idiot (like, apparently, Eurocrats are), you ought to be able to distinguish fake from true reviews fairly easily.
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.
Their instinct is always that if something exists, the government bureaucracy needs to get its tentacles into it. The idea that a free marketplace of ideas can exist is just foreign to these guys. I honestly don't think even dyed-in-the-wool socialists like Sanders or Jill Stein would think to make everyone unambiguously identify themselves online with a government id.
... are different.
This is not wild honey.
This is a blantant ploy to legalize profits for big business.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Is Hollander a Jew?
You guys are despicable, totally despicable
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The idea of having a mandatory requirement of using online ids and removing anonymity from the Internet isn't too bright, and also opens up a gigantic single point of failure with the government login / authentication systems.
However, I'm more interested in whether any government at all allows third parties to use their ids for third party authentication, maybe something like having an OpenId server support like how Google, Facebook etc. logins can be used as the primary login on some other sites. This would potentially allow for someone who cares about 'fake reviews' so much, to allow people to authenticate using their presumably properly vetted govt id. Then, it would be up to that individual site to choose whether it should also allow other account types, whether using free email or their own site based solution etc. This makes it feasible to mark reviews that are from 'trusted sources' (trust as in, person has a verifiable identity and he can't just discard it for a new one easily) while allowing other reviews or even disabling that if desired.
I could see this as being actually very useful for certain scenarios, specifically thinking of the constant and currently-insoluble problem of trolls in online games. Say that Blizzard as a new MMO with Server A only allowing logins using trusted credentials. A user with govt id makes an account, chooses a nickname and starts playing as usual. But if he is banned for cheating or trolling, he can't just make a new account, as governments don't exactly let you have a different DL # or passport # without a really good reason. Those who don't want to or are unable to use a trusted id, would instead get to play on Server B which would not be used for official tournaments etc.
This kind of approach would see governments leverage their existing identity verification as a supporting mechanism to enable opt-in usage by commercial entities. Which also means that it will only be used when it makes sense and not just a new mechanism to track everyone's actions online. Sure, if Amazon.eu decides that fake reviews are a grave issue and only verified users can post them, that's fine - people can still leave anonymous comments elsewhere, and others will use whichever has more useful information. Certainly, besides the 'fake' comments there may be honest commenters who simply don't want to get sued for strong language or w/e.
So, back to my question - are there OpenId or similar authentication endpoints that EU or any of its member states make available currently?
That's when they actually want to implement something. This could be just a diversion while they erode rights in some other area :-)
Shut the fuck up!!!
Is there an existing mandatory EU ID card ? or would this be a new initiative in itself ? I also don't see how knowing who wrote the review would ensure a lack or bias or manipulation.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Why don't we go all the way back, and make people wearing the Star of David for easy identification?
Europe criticizes China when the Communist Regime mandated that everyone who register for their weibo services must use their real name
The European parliament mourned for the loss of free speech in China, and poured money to support 'Chinese dissidents', even to the tune of awarding the noble prize to a certain Chinese writer (I read his books, in the Mandarin language, they were pure trash) just because he happens to be a 'Chinese dissident'
And no, I am not a supporter of the Communist Regime of China. I was an opponent of the CCP, and still am
The thing is, if Europe criticized China for the death of freedom they (Europeans) better don't repeat what the CCP has done
sigh!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When I see some of the possible outcomes of an election in the US, I have a strong interest in the government not being able to track everything I say or do online.
The present government isn't dangerous, but the collected information will endure and some day (soon?) we may have a government that will act against me for statements that were completely legal when they were made.
If this idea goes forward and is widely embraced, then perhaps there will be two "Dark Webs" - the current one, (used mostly by criminals), and "Dark Web Lite". The latter will be used mostly by the new class of criminals created by the new legislation; namely, those who say "fuck that" to the whole misguided 'papers please!' version of the Internet and establish their own online territory where anonymity is honoured, and where government ID's aren't required and don't mean shit.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Seriously, here in the US, I am amazed that the USPO, which does our passports, has not picked up a sideline of doing state IDs (IDs, not driver licenses), along with the ability to have a verified ID key. It makes sense for them to be able to create these (actually sell them), since they are already used to checking IDs, etc. Would I want to be verified everywhere? Not a chance. OTOH, when dealing with the IRS, stores, etc. I very much would love to have them require a vetted ID, esp. when dealing with CCs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Terrorism, drugs, pornography and other criminal activities were not enough to justify this. But threaten the bottom line of big business and suddenly Something Must Be Done.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you want to use your credit card to verify you know a name that matches a number and maybe two other numbers and a checksum, good for you. Any credit card processor will verify it for you *AND* if you're not a customer of one you can just go try and buy ANYTHING online and if the credit card checks out you can go and use it.
Government IDs are different and the systems that can verify them run everything from C# to Ada to Cobol. https://fcw.com/articles/2013/...
There are -no- APIs to allow anyone to verify them, but moreover there won't be any APIs because OUR government doesn't want FOREIGN governments to be able to verify passports, SSNs, IDs, etc.
That same "concern" is shared by most every other country in the world. So right there you can kiss API verification goodbye.
Where does that leave us? Public-key? No... because that's not either
a) Government provided (read "verified and if they don't like you you can't have one")
b) Government authenticated (read "if you piss them off it won't verify" think Assange, Snowden, Aaron Schwartz, or ANYONE accused of a crime)
So given that governments won't provide an API, and we the free people don't want our ability to interact on the Internet taken away by ... or ... or
a) conscious act of government not wanting to auth you
b) government can't run a server well and it's not able to auth you
c) the contractor doing upgrades takes it down 6 hours each Sunday morning like some F** database servers...
this is a nonstarter.
E
Many sites require a phone number before allowing someone to post reviews. A code wrapped into a SMS is sent to that number, and the user validates the account by inputing the code on the site. How come this is not enough? Some people have two or three phones, but compared to the many mail accounts that may easily be created and used..
Using the ID card is the end of privacy. Sooner or later more sites and applications would require the ID, and people getting used to give it on the Internet would not hesitate anymore.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Even if I am forced to use one, single, verified, form of identification (no matter whether this is as an EU citizen or not), there is STILL nothing that guarantees what I write in my review is truthful, accurate, competent, unbiased or consistent.
We would still get situations where suppliers offer "samples" to reviewers in return for them writing glowing reports of crappy products. We would still get situations where someone, who bought a faulty product years ago, continues a vendetta against a brand for their own bitter and twisted reasons and we would still get situations where people give products a 1-star rating simply because it was delivered late.
It also won't do anything to stop the negativity bias: that people are more likely to write a review if they have something to complain about, than if what they bought is just OK.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
"Novelty Item" reviews will become non existent.
sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
so that jacks online cheese shop and have my SS? just so I can login in?
What about jay's adult toy shop why should they have my real name?
Many thanks for the thought provoking answer to my lamentation
Although I do mourn for the tanking of quality comments in Slashdot I still come back - the type of enlightening comments such as yours is precisely why I am still here
Thanks again!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That is because 'they' are pedophiles themselves, so pedophiles can't be mentioned as a problem, or else the government's monitoring capabilities will backfire on themselves
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Even in the story, they quote text which can only be interpreted in a certain way and the story makes the opposite conclusion of what even a 5 year old would be capable of doing.
There is no proposal to force citizens to use their eID (which aren't universally available in any case), to be able to log in to any website. It is a preliminary letter about investigating whether there should be regulation or directives to mandate that websites support this as an alternative log in mechanism.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
...as soon as the Brexit is a fact the interest will naturally rise and that same money will come back, looking for a profit.
Furthermore, during the inevitable next financial crisis (caused by the banking system) the Pound will devalue, thus preventing British assets such as utilities, oil fields, historical monuments, etc., to be grabbed by 'the elite' a la Greece.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
As a total off-topic: I've never seen a clearer illustration of sheer peer pressure, ever.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
If you are so concerned regarding being spied upon, you should actually look at your own government and what it's doing through its GCHQ agency. This EU proposal is peanuts compared to that.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Strange. There are currently many more countries asking to join the EU than those considering leaving (one).
And the one considering leaving has always had certain opt-outs (currency, open borders, etc.), and has negotiated all kinds of exceptions because it's an oddball in the way it produces money and imports goods, but a powerful oddball, and otherwise its membership would be unfair to it but the EU still want to keep it in.
And even in that one country... the polls are currently saying 50% of people are in, 50% of people want out. Which basically means nothing will happen at all, and people don't know what they want.
So far, I don't think a single country has ever left the EU historically, even places like Greece - not bad for something formed from the basic idea from just after WW2. (Greenland you say? Technically that's part of Denmark, which is still in).
This is a mostly US plateform everybody will jump on the gun and accuse EU of authoritarianism, dictature, compare to china and north korea. This is the standard fare here, look at past article.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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).
Even if we all ignore that this is a suggestion, not something that would pass through the strong EU privacy rules etc.:
IN NO WAY DOES THE CURRENT TEXT INDICATE ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY!
" ... 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."
Or in other words: people should be able to choose to use ID cards as a credential online. - period
Not be forced to do so - the text is explicit that there have to be a choice from the consumer.
I'm totally in favor of free markets and companies trying to make profits. But the government should not be trying to guarantee profits for them.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
No. No. No.
Just fucking NO, goddammit.
Eat the rich.
Oh boy, now I'm supposed to be a JEW
If I am a JEW then there will be over 1 Billion JEWS in China as well as more than 300 million other JEWS living inside and outside the many "JEWTOWNS" all over the world
With the sudden increase of 1.3 ~ 1.5 new JEWS I'm sure those running Israel will be happy like a clam
One important caveat: Most of the new JEWS can't pronounce "Fried Rice" correctly but some of them do make the most delicious dimsum this JEW loves so much!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Indeed, for example here in Sweden we have had several politicians that had to leave office due to them expressing anti-Semitic ideas. I have however not seen a single one being forced out due to expressing anti-Muslim ideas. And looking at television, news papers and discussion forums it seams that Muslims are a free for all target at the moment throughout Europe.
How do you spell "single point of failure" in all EU languages?
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
No, this is a great idea. Lots of web sites want all your personal details so that they have run security checks on your identity. They are mainly trying to stop criminals ripping them off, so they want to know things like your address and phone number.
Say the government offered to sign ID tokens. They sign to say they have verified your identity to a certain standard, good enough for web merchants. You can now present the merchant with a token and permission to access the minimum amount of data necessary (delivery address, which might not be your home address, and name). They can pass that token on to the bank when doing credit card payment processing too.
Your privacy is enhanced by not having to give over lots of unnecessary personal data, and by having disposable tokens you can generate whenever you like. If the system goes down, oh well just log in the old fashioned way or wait until tomorrow.
Google is building something a bit like this already. A kind of hybrid between apps and web sites where the merchant's site can, with permission, use details from Google Wallet to speed up the check-out process and avoid making the user create an account. Of course it ties in to Google's payment platform, which is why a government run system that is neutral would be much better.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The comments are worse than the articles.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Racists are second rate citizens, they are selfish and unhelpful. The easiest way to solve your problem is stop being a racist and only you can do it for yourself.
[site]
With the UK in the thrall of EU referendum I can't help think this would be a non story at any other time.
Its alarming how keen the media is to stoke racist devisions , please treat them with the suspicion they are trying to make you feel about other races instead of accepting it as valid.
[site]
I do read the comments here and have realize a dichotomy of responses to the same article
Those from the West side of the Pond (USA) tend to see this as a creeping danger, a slippery slope that will end up gobbling up the rights of the individuals
Those from the Right side of the Pond (Europe), on the other hand, tend to espouse your point of view --- that the entire thing is nothing but an 'encouragement', a mere 'suggestion', with 'check and balances', and so on, and so forth
A guy even lament that we from the West side of the Pond are kinda 'over-reacting' to a totally harmless proposal
All I can see from this dichotomy is the difference in the way we were brought up
I am an America but I am a naturalized American. I came from China
In America I find that most of my fellow Americans (those who were born inside the USA) share with me a very strong suspicion against the government
But on the other side of the pond, you Europeans seem to put all your trust on the government --- for you, TPTB is nothing to fear, for TPTB is good, and will work for the good for all
I am not going to tell you that we Americans are right and you are wrong, however, I do need to remind you guys, the Europeans one thing ---
If you put too much trust on someone one day that same someone might betray you and you will be hurt, and hurt bad
Lest you forget, may I bring up the Snowden files?
Of all the info Edward Snowden has given us, one thing stand out --- that power corrupts
Governments, no matter if it is from US or UK or France of Germany, were all involved in the invasion of privacy, in clear violation of the rules
We from the West side of the Pond tend to not trust our government so much because we still retain that important quality you Europeans have long lost --- that sense of ever vigilance
You guys trust your government too much and one day you guys will grow to regret it
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is wrong. Muslims are getting criticized a lot in Europe, there is no problem doing that there. We are not infected by the SJW ... yet.
But try to even joke about Jews and you are in a world of trouble. The humorist/provocateur Dieudonné is a good example of this. Not that the guy is a saint, but when he say horrors about Christians or Muslims and see people smile or laugh; when he says horrors about Jews nobody smiles anymore. He got his shows censored and forbidden. Can you imagine that in a country supposed to be "free" ?
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
This is every government's wet dream.
Total identity control, penalties for NOT using your real identity.....oh I can hear the jackboots creaming in their pants already.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
We don't have them because we won - twice.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
On the plus side, just think how much easier it will be for companies to sue you when you publish a negative review...
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Go back to your White Power clubhouse and fondle yourself while you babble about your brain-damaged conspiracy fantasies and your bullshit versions of history.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
you're the one trying to make political idealogy a medical issue
Check out (((Brother Nathanael))) on (((yt))), (((dailystormer))), (((Gilad Atzmon))), or many other good sources before they get SHUT DOWN!
TFTFY.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Iceland - population 332,529
Greece - population 10,955,000
Greece has a GDP 20 times as much as Iceland - AFTER the crash.
Iceland is basically a large town, or small city.
Iceland also didn't "recover" - the state took over the banks, secured the local money, and allowed the rest of it to go bankrupt. Billions were lost in the Iceland crash by foreign investors, and the government was dissolved at least once. Imagine what that means in terms of future exports, imports and investment.
Despite starting from a much higher standpoint than Greece, Iceland still suffered significantly for it, and is still doing so.
Your UK newspaper interpretation of an EU MORI poll is interesting - in that almost all the EU countries "would vote remain" if there was a referendum in their countries (2nd graph). Gosh, they must hate it.
And the rest of the countries waiting to join have been there forever. Look on a map. West to East, the only things left to join are former Soviet states, Turkey (looking to join the EU too) and a couple of countries who've never had any interest in it (highly independent countries, by tradition anyway, neutral in wars, etc.).
The fact that the EU are CONSIDERING allowing those countries in, when they have removed all kinds of other applications because of the risk to stability, means they feel secure enough to let those countries in. It would be like letting the lame duck into the group of survivors otherwise - bound to bring everything down.
Brexit would probably be quite stupid. But nobody knows for sure. Picking the two countries most affected by the crash (and not even mentioning, say, Italy) and using them as the reason why Britain (one of the most financially stable of all EU countries) should leave - and then implying Greece's collapse was because of those same EU countries, including the UK, somehow "robbing" it of money - is just inconsistent. Either the EU are there to rob countries like Greece of their stability and profit from it, or they are running away from the opportunity to do so. You can't have it both ways.
Or maybe the EU is quite happy to have Greece in it so long as they don't all start retiring at 40, drawing their pensions, and letting the politicians pay off debts from their billions of bailouts that benefit them personally first, and then blaming the EU for "not helping".
the European Commission is exploring the theoretical possibilities of forcing online review platforms into using government IDs as online identities
So, this effort isn't focused on basic internet connectivity. It's still creepy, and I for one won't be (further) compromising my (delusional) anonymity just to make an uncompensated contribution to business. It makes me sad to think of how the integrity of online reviews might be even more degraded as an unintended consequence of this action. Fortunately, TFA makes it sound as if this proposal might not become law.