Thales on the other hand are not what I would describe as a good actor but rather one of the "usual suspects".
Thales on the other hand are not what I would describe as a good actor but rather one of the "usual suspects".
I also wonder how this will be regarded in countries like Ireland, which doesn't have a national ID card and where a recent attempt to make a similar digital ID system mandatory was ruled unlawful (PSC/MyGovID).
So the situation will be better for us than today - there will be more options providing the ID (and wallets), including highly privacy-preserving tech based on modern encryption techniques. That will make it much harder to be tracked by commercial players and much harder to be tracked legally by governments.
For the blackhat / illegal security agencies: you might make it a little harder because the US-compromised companies (FAANG + MS) aren't (always) involved.
But this suggestion ain't it. Most EU countries already have a de facto mandatory electronic ID for every resident.
What's your basis for this claim? From the declared strategy, it seems perfect for abuse as a surveillance tool.
> Most EU countries already have a de facto mandatory electronic ID for every resident.
As stated elsewhere, my country (Ireland) does not. It's attempt at a mandatory electronic ID (MyGovID/Public Services Card) was ruled as unlawful (it's still available, but cannot be required to access government services).
Strategy link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
however, as an EU citizen, I can see immediate advantages to a cautiously administered digital id. as it is, many states within the EU demand a national tax id on registration for services as simple as bike rental, such a digital id would presumably supersede such nonsense and help further the single market everyone is working towards.
Also there are so many bullshitters and snake-oil merchants in this field; makes you think that most of the "security" industry is a confidence game.
What happens when I buy debian mobile? I presume it will not be accepted because there will be no safe app. No app, no identity? No identity means you're suddenly locked out of society.
What phone theft? Most people's phone security is almost non existent.
What about luddites who have no mobile at all?
It seems like it's 100% about control of people. And that's a privacy matter. My body, my life, my choice.
In theory, you should be able to go on using a passport for your actual needs. In practice, it is to be seen whether this initiative will cause or not cases where "options" become "constraints".
Said perspective is insanity: for those websites relevant to an anagraphic identity it would be dramatically abnormal to use any supposed private company related account. It would be sheer absurdity to suppose a "need" for accounts with private entities to log on to nominal services.
Let's manage the beloved and accountable Eurocrats in Brussels our private Auth-infrastructure, because its not like this problem would be solvable otherwise:
That's the key. European politicians are accountable to European citizens. Big corporations are not. This seems a step in the right direction.
That joke made my day. I'm guessing Ursula von der Leyen is a real people's champ then.
> * Big corporations are not. This seems a step in the right direction.*
So let big corporations develop the technology? Especially those that are intertwined with the state? In otherwords, entitites where the state has created plausible deniability for itself? Great, what could go wrong?
And again, FIDO is an open standard, that by definition isn't run or dependend on the servers of "for profit private companies".
But gee, I must be total noob then. Open-Source can be bad, as can be accountability.
For the greater good I guess.
The example provided (bank account, university registration) make it clear that we're talking about authenticating against a person real, legal entity here. It's not needed in all cases, and when it's not FIDO is fine, but when it's needed in the end the root of trust in Europe is one's national state anyway.
People in Europe don't. People in the various countries do. This is just a level above, just like you don't say "oh why do we need the german government, can't the mayors do everything?".
Different levels of organization need different democratic governments. Tribalism is not the solution.
Having an executive made up of people selected by other politicians for political reasons is all very well as long as they understand that they do not have much legitimacy.
JC Junker, for all that he was a bit of an old sot, understood this very well.
Von der Leyen, either because of her immensely privileged background, or because of her inability to communicate in any diplomatic way, has revealed the undemocratic abomination at the heart of the European Project.
Her press conference with Stoltenberg (and Belgian nonentity Michel) at the outset of the Ukraine war deprived the EU of any room for manoeuvre in relations with Russia. She unilaterally committed hundreds of millions of people to a diplomatically absolutist position. Furthermore, she actively spun against attempts by Macron and Scholz to moderate that position.
The EU cannot continue like this: already I'm quite dubious as to whether it will survive the winter, with double digit inflation and mass industrial layoffs in prospect.
If Putin wants to play divide et impera with Russian fossil fuel supplies, she has certainly created the ideal conditions for him to do so.
She is corrupt (see Pfizer SMS) and unaccountable.
Are all of those undemocratic, too?
> Her press conference with Stoltenberg (and Belgian nonentity Michel) at the outset of the Ukraine war deprived the EU of any room for manoeuvre in relations with Russia.
Russia's war of aggression on our neighbor deprived us of any room for manouvre. We've seen what appeasement brings in the 30s, no need to play that game again.
The game we are playing is resulting in mass death and destruction in Ukraine, and slowly throttling the European economies. What's the point?
Perhaps if you expanded your frame of historical reference you might see more clearly.
Perhaps if you educate yourself more about the era you might see the parallels more clearly.
You say "slowly throttling the economies", I say finally giving us a reason to accelerate investment in renewables before climate change kills us all.
That's not quite correct; the PM is appointed by the Queen.
In the event of a revolt by the parliamentary party of government against their leader, then the party gets to appoint a new leader, who then becomes PM. But that choice is reserved to the MPs of the majority party - hardly democratic.
But in the general case, there's a General Election, and the leader of the winning party becomes PM.
It's designed for things like filing your taxes or applying for a passport.
Does the grocery store ask you for your passport? If not, why should the online store ask you for your online passport?