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.
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.
Yes, rampant online anonymous abuse is another reason.
...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
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...
If this is such a great benefit for the consumer, then surely everyone will want to use one and making them "mandatory" is unnecessary.
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.
That's when they actually want to implement something. This could be just a diversion while they erode rights in some other area :-)
Don't worry -- as evidenced in comments earlier about Ted Cruz's DNS stewardship bill, European elites would *never* do something like limit Europeans' online rights over something like criticizing religious zealots (Germany), or use their security apparatus to snoop virtually all Internet activity (UK), or outlaw the use of encryption (France), or require a three-strikes policy where someone can allege you pirated things three times to ban you from the Internet (France again). Only the American government does things like that. European governments are enlightened!</sarc>
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
Shut the fuck up!!!
Yeah, the NZ government is quietly pushing its RealMe system as exactly that; trying to get every site to use it. They're encouraging third party sites to use it Except they go FURTHER than what you're suggesting - it is a criminal offense to ever have more than one log in into this system. You cannot get a replacement, full stop. The idea is this system is then used to authorise replacement passports, drivers licenses, bank accounts etc.. but yeah.
But the reality is my identity is protected more by having less of it online.
If your website doesn't know who I am, then a compromise on your website cannot leak information about me, at least, not as much. And it helps protect me from the threat of suits, or the threat of simply being haunted by my past actions. (A google search, for example, will never tie this comment to my real name.)
Stupidly, we currently have a very powerful privacy act. People are updating it now to weaken it as 'technology has changed'. The old act is written in terms of principles - and things like 'you cannot ask for IDs without a good reason'. The new act will weaken privacy in the name of ... umm.. I suspect, combating copyright infringement. Yes, I'm cynical, how did you notice?
THEY ARE EXPLORING THE IDEA.
It is still disturbing that they considered mandatory online IDs to be an idea worth exploring. The Wannsee Conference was also just some European leaders exploring ideas.
Unless they have seen the cameras everywhere and have worked out that the UK government is all for that much tracking and more.
This issue is completely unrelated to Brexit for better or worse.
Your do realise that if the UK left the EU they could initiate free trade deals that do actually help the UK's economy. As it stands right now a bunch of socialist wingnuts in the EU are blocking free trade deals because they want to protect every buggy whip maker they represent.
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 !
THEY ARE EXPLORING THE IDEA.
It is still disturbing that they considered mandatory online IDs to be an idea worth exploring. The Wannsee Conference was also just some European leaders exploring ideas.
Actually, the disturbing part is to try to understand how the article on slashdot speaks of "mandatory online ID" when the initial paragraph in the EU commission pdf is:
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 Regulation39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own.
The document also contains some stuff like
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
Someone somewhere in the path between slashdot and the EU commission must have some reading comprehension problems. Or maybe it's misrepresented on purpose.
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
The cure is worse than the disease, and Orwell would be really shocked.
We have Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Brave new World and THX all in one huge pot controlled by a few in Brussels that in turn are controlled by lobbyists.
I'm starting to think that Brexit is a great idea.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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
I'm a Briton and I'll be voting to remain in the EU. Brexit is for masochists. Even Nigel Farage admited in the ITV debate with David Cameron the other day that the UK economy will shrink if we leave the EU, and frankly I'd rather not see the governement tax take shrinking resulting in more cuts, more tax rises and more money wasted servicing the national debt (currently about equal to the defence budget).
As for this story... it just sounds like typical anti-EU BS. As if the UK would agree to something like this given that we don't even have national ID in this country, and we rejected this when the last Labour government mooted it.
> "consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves"
This basically means that "it would be nice if online platforms accepted government eIDs for logging in", it does NOT mean "all citizens must comply and use government eIDs for using the Internet or online services". What they are talking about is mandating that online platforms such as facebook, google, amazon etc accepts eIDs as credentials. This is in an exploratory phase, and is likely that it will never fly and make it as a directive in the end.
In the UK, where the eIDs do not exist, for better or for worse, such a directive would in any case have zero impact on citizens. Maybe it would have an impact on online services (i.e. forcing a web developer to add the support for this way of logging in). Thus, such a directive may be criticised as being too much red-tape for web developer, but hardly as something Orwellian. This said, they havn't even proposed a directive yet, just written a public letter saying that they are investigating it. It may turn out that the investigation leads to status quo where no directive or regulations are proposed.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
If 'fake reviews' is the worst that can happen, then requiring a government issued ID for logon seems gross overkill to me. I mean, heck, they don't even try to play the 'terrorism' card...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Please.
They will make this system, and they will make it optional.
For a while.
Then to 'streamline' and 'improve efficiency' it will be harder and harder to do anything online from the EU without using that system.
Eight, ten years down the line it WILL be mandatory because no ISPs will be left that don't require it to let you connect - but from a LEGAL standpoint it is still 'optional'.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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
Orwell was an optimist.
Someone somewhere in the path between slashdot and the EU commission must have some reading comprehension problems. Or maybe it's misrepresented on purpose.
Or maybe we have seen how the worst government excesses are always presented like this, and are naturally mistrusting about anything that whiffs of destroying a vital part of our freedom.
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." (Juncker)
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,” (Juncker)
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,” (Juncker)
"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates" (Juncker)
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie." (Juncker)
Are you trying to say you trust this guy?
That's kinda funny, because if brexit happens, I'm planning to open a bank account there. It will be a nearby, well-governed, safe place under a law system I at least vaguely understand, yet it's outside of the EU. Sounds like a great place to store my money.
I'm a Briton and I'll be voting to remain in the EU. Brexit is for masochists. Even Nigel Farage admited in the ITV debate with David Cameron the other day that the UK economy will shrink if we leave the EU.
Just a few generations ago, the British gave their very lives for the freedom of this entire continent. Sad to see how they now wouldn't even want to lose a few lousy euros for their own liberty...
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).
How exactly am I going to "choose" if that whole shit catches on and companies only allow login with that ID card because they in turn are going to get a law forcing them to correctly identify me and them deciding that it's easier for them to pass the buck back on?
Won't happen? You haven't seen many pages yet that only allow you to sign in using your Facebook account, have you? And here we're a far cry from any government mandating it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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).
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!
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 !
You're making a vast array of flawed assumptions:
- that trade deals are necessary to trade: they are not, as the record US-EU trade levels prove, without trade deals being currently enforced between the two (they are negotiating one right now, and hopefully the negotiation will fail)
- that trade deals are "good": they are not, tell it to those who lost their jobs because of companies moving production where labor costs are low
- that France and Germany are pro-EU, and their current governments are somehow eternal (have you seen the polls for the next french election?)
In general, you're forgetting the fact that anti-EU parties are skyrocketing everywhere, and EU's popularity is as low as a sewer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus...
Your idea of an EU "multicultural" cesspool-superstate is ending where it belongs: to the Landfill of History
You are mistaken and spreading FUD.
The EU is known for its (to some excessive amount of) deliberation and almost all of the crazy or stupid stuff dies in the process (TTIP potentially being a problematic counterexample and the misguided neoliberal approach to fiscal policies another).
People love shitting all over the EU, but in general it has the most rational and thought-through policies on this planet, due to the amount of deliberation and processes involved and in spite of chauvinism and selfish behaviour from (some of) its member states.
The curvature of bananas was part of a long list of quality demands in which I can imagine it to have been thought innocuous at the time:
"The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste."
The demands concerning size and shape are set to be dropped:
"On 29 July 2008, the European Commission held a preliminary vote concerning the repeal of certain regulations related to the quality of specific fruit and vegetables that included provisions related to size and shape."
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
I never said the EU was perfect. I did say this:
"almost all of the crazy or stupid stuff dies in the process"
and this:
"in general it has the most rational and thought-through policies on this planet"
Note by the way that (spoilt) consumers have long tended to disregard 'ugly' vegetables and fruit; they'd rather buy something else that does meet their aesthetic expectations. In response, retailers in the developed countries have been imposing restrictions on the appearance of the stuff they buy, because they'd rather not be the ones throwing the ugly stuff away at the end of the day. I could see how this would lead the EC to justify an EU-wide standard for banana-quality as a way to prevent waste early on in the process, pushing the 'ugly' food to countries with less spoilt customers, and to prevent member states from making life harder for banana producers by each having their own banana standard. Let me emphasize that I don't believe this specific bit of EU-wide standardization is one of the high points of EU legislation, but if this is the worst bit of legislation it has produced then that is actually proof that legislation in the EU in general is in pretty good fucking shape.
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
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]
Then explain how the regulations regarding curving of cucumbers ended into a legislation in the EU
The country which pushed it through (the UK, so it's deeply ironic that the Brexiters keep bringing it up) already had various regulations governing the appearance of Class I, Class II and Class III vegetables. So did the rest of the EU, but as always everyone had different regulations.
The so-called silly regulations simply made them the same Europe wide, so what was a class I banana in England could be sold as a Class I one in Germany.
So tell me, what's worse, having 1 rule about the curvature of bannnannanaas or having 28 different and incompatible rules across 28 countries that trade a lot?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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 !