Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

European e-ID Announced

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the papers-please dept.

Privacy 155

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."

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mandatory (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888649)

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?"

Re:Mandatory (4, Insightful)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888791)

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.

Re:Mandatory (2)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888823)

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.

Re:Mandatory (4, Insightful)

cornjones (33009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888945)

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...

Re:Mandatory (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890133)

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.

Re:Mandatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890427)

> we are in the longest time of European peace in recorded history
No we're not. The Bosnian War was just 17 years ago.

Re:Mandatory (4, Insightful)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888975)

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

Re:Mandatory (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889253)

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.

Re:Mandatory (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889457)

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

That seems far-fetched. Germany didn't exactly have a lot of trouble exporting it's goods before the Euro.

Re:Mandatory (4, Informative)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889815)

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 [tradingeconomics.com] . You can see very noticable climb in trade surplus. This was a direct result of the introduction of the Euro.

Re:Mandatory (1)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888853)

it is nice to see that the EU really isn't that much different than the good ol' US of A...

our government had a ~ 217 year head start in fucking things up so just give it some time, the EU will catch up in no time at the rate it's going.

Re:Mandatory (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889035)

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"?

Re:Mandatory (4, Insightful)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889345)

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.

Re:Mandatory (3, Insightful)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890263)

"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.

Re:Mandatory (5, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889107)

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.

Re:Mandatory (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889419)

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.

Quite analogous to the power grab by the Feds over the States in the US....

Re:Mandatory (3, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889431)

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.

Re:Mandatory (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889777)

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?

Re:Mandatory (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890435)

There is nothing wrong with the EU project as such, however there are several implementation bugs, like the lack of parliamentary control. However, the memberstate governments and the nationalists do not want to have parliamentary control over the Union as it a) would prevent governments from blaming the EU when they push through a directive in the council without proper scrutiny (i.e. the member state gov made the shit up, but blames the EU) or b) infringes on their sovereignty (not that sovereignty will matter if the Chinese rule Europe by divide and conquer). The latter group is especially interesting as they value sovereignty and complain that the EU is undemocratic, well... you cannot have both, so either they should shut up, admitting that they have a complete utterly flawed base for their arguments, or they should change the arguments into something like: "well, you know, we prefer sovereignty over democracy on EU level, so we will vote like this".

Of course, some of the "nationalists" want to abolish the EU (I have still not seen them admitting that you can have either sovereignty or democracy on EU level), and I am sure they will be very happy when Europe's states gets chopped up in pieces and divided between the Yanks, Chinese and the Indians.

goal of setting up the EU (1)

1800maxim (702377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890499)

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.

What makes you think that wasn't the goal from the beginning?

The EU must know where your cock is, always. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888793)

It's very important for the EU to know exactly where your penis is at each and every point in time. Your penis is not only a weapon, but it can be a victim, too. It's imperative that safety for every penis comes first and foremost, above all else, including freedom.

Let me give you an example of why it's important for them to constantly monitor the location of your penis at all times. Say you're traveling from Brussels to Hamburg. You're on the train, and enjoying a quick snack. While you're drinking a bottle of juice, the train unexpectedly slows down. This surprises you, and you drop the almost-full bottle onto your lap. If it weren't for the EU monitoring exactly where your penis is, your penis could have been crushed and damaged severely by this falling bottle.

Now you see why it's important to have tracking like this in place. It's for our own safety, and it's for the safety of everyone else, too.

Re:Mandatory (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889229)

Another real problem is when accounts get hacked/USB drives get misplaced/insert data breach here and the whole system is invalidated. And that's if you're even aware of the breach.

on thursday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888655)

And on Thursday a group of hackers announced a hack to the e-id -;)

Re:on thursday (2)

sleiper (1772326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888747)

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?

Re:on thursday (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888821)

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.

Re:on thursday (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889369)

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.

Re:on thursday (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890527)

Actually, the Commission do usually ask before they start writing directives. They tend to request comments from the public, though the public is in general not aware of this.

Whether they did so in this case, I have no idea, but I would not claim that they haven't asked the public without double checking that first.

Re:on thursday (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889119)

There is no way to make these secure, biometrics do not work well enough and probably never will, no matter what the manufacturers of biometric readers would say

The supposedly hyper-secure completely unfakeable biometric passports were shown off in the USA at a security conference by the the firm who designed it, they had a reader setup to show all the details of a person on a sample passport, and then someone walked in with a passport that was accepted by the system as genuine, for Elvis ....

Currently I don't need a secure ID to access the internet, and I suspect that many devices will not be able to use this ... why do I need this...?

Let's get Godwin out of the way (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888661)

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.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888685)

My passport? All right. CLANG

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888761)

It's a bit clangy and a bit jammy...

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888911)

The ID numbers will be self-validating. The checksum will always be 666.

Thread over. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888695)

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.

I guess the thread is over then.

This is Slashdot after all and topics like this (online IDs, privacy, "think of the children", government intrusiveness and tracking) have been beaten to death.

Re:Thread over. (5, Interesting)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888869)

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.

Re:Thread over. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889787)

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

Sweet, I always wanted to beat a dead horse with a LOL cat.

Ihre papiere bitte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888739)

The economic debacle and the fonctionairs response to it has most of Europe up in arms in anger, with the likely loss by M Sarkozy in France, the local Election results in the UK that could well unseat CamMORON and the pending German elections. These idiots have their eyes tightly closed as the sing La La La!

MFG, omb

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888751)

I'm not a child, i don't need protection. Thank you.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889769)

I'm not a child, i don't need protection. Thank you.

*BZZT* Wrong answer....but thanks for playing.

For your consolation prize, please report to room 101 down at the end of the hall....and please, try to remember who you love....

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890149)

"it's the worst thing in the world [wikipedia.org] ."

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (4, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888837)

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.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889091)

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 [webwereld.nl] (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?

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889375)

we could integrate DigiD with....

Is that really what you want? What this will boil down to is a (European) law that requires you and providers to only use the 'official' eId for authentification. No more privacy, no anonymity, big brother can log in everywhere you are.

CC.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889555)

Only partially true.
It is only mandatory to be able to identify yourself.
Whether you do this with a Personalausweis or a Reisepass ("passport") is up to you.
Unless you require a passport for your travels, the Personalausweis is the cheaper alternative.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890459)

I am quite capable of identifying myself, when I choose to, with my speech alone.

The papieren are for the verification of my identity by a third party for the other agent in the transaction. These agents compel citizens to carry third party verification and can compel transactions.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889937)

Only EUR 28,80? Prices in .nl are, "up to" 40,05 for a card and "up to" 48,73 for a passport, excluding photograph. More if you're talking to an embassy (about a tenner more), and even more for an "emergency" passport only valid for one year. And, of course, you end up needing both card and passport.

That "biometric" photograph is also kinda interesting. First, you have one made, which is electronically now-a-days, then it gets printed, then you give it to the bureaucrats and they scan-and-digitize it. Oh, and the "biometric" part? There's a whole raft of regulations on the relative size of your head wrt the photograph, but also the length/width ratio of your head(!), which in extreme cases predictably results in photographers turning to photoshop to make your picture conform to the rules. One more tiny sneaky way in which the security circus makes itself known.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889217)

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.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889707)

Godwin's law is just a lazy non-answer used by people who don't understand what analogies are. Government corruption is very much real.

Re:Let's get Godwin out of the way (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890125)

What? Facebook login's not good enough?

Stork Project? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888679)

So what happened to the Stork Project, that is supposed to be working on this? I don't see it mentioned anywhere.
Stork wins an award for the most painfully-contrived acronym I have ever seen.

https://www.eid-stork.eu/

Its about tracking and logging (4, Insightful)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888707)

Authentication is just a requirement of those two.

Re:Its about tracking and logging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888809)

You don't have to authenticate or use services which require authentication, if you don't want to.

Re:Its about tracking and logging (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889197)

What if authentication becomes mandatory for public sites (such as Slashdot)? I don't want to authenticate with my true identity, but I still want to use those services, and I have very good reason to not always post stuff under my true name. Not to hide stuff from the government, and I am actually OK with the authorities obtaining certain digital info on me, if I am suspect in a crime, and if a judge issues a "digital search warrant" (Of course neither condition will be added to this proposal, in NL they don't even need court approval anymore to search my house, for crying out loud). It is often in my best interest if my employer does not know what I post on the Web, and sometimes it is also in my employer's best interest if people who read my stuff do not know whom I work for.

Re:Its about tracking and logging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889149)

Yeah, just like those bank accounts used to pay for online stuff.
I see no difference.
Both are just as evil as each other.

Besides, it is for moronic children and lazy parents.
I'm certainly not bringing a child in to this horrible shitstain of a society so I couldn't care less about it.
They try force it, then they will see my fist in their faces.

On Wednesday, the European Commission published a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888717)

strategy document aimed at setting up systems to protect children online. It always makes me cringe whenever I read that.

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888749)

strategy document aimed at setting up systems to protect children online

We should call the people who repeatedly propose this crap Internet Quislings.

--
BMO

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889235)

Better yet, let's create a new -philia! Everybody loves those things!

Depophilia - the over protection of children at the detriment to their growth.
ex. "You are such a depo, your kid is going to be a 40 year old virgin at this rate."
ex2. "If you keep holding your kid in and hiding him from everything, he'll never grow up." (there are people who are genuinely like this and spit children out their holes just because they like to have kids around)

I deliberately made it reverse of Pedo so that it gains enough notice and have people screaming and burning down buildings to find those responsible for hurting these poor kids during aging.

Spread it around. Let's have another philia pandemic. I, for one, think we can't have enough of them.

Re:On Wednesday, the European Commission published (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889437)

As much as I disagree with some of the man's decisions, Reagan once summed it up quite nicely:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Children Don't Need Protection (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888759)

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.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888993)

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.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (1, Troll)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889117)

That is of course, until opium in your veins runs out and you return to wonderful reality where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse then from pretty much all other factors, unless they live in a third world country.

A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (1)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889413)

Good thing the politicians are making sure to protect the children against... online... parental abuse, then. Yeah.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889753)

Why do you think the talk is focused on less then 10% of total child abuse that is sourced from outside family rather then 90% that is inside family?

One wins votes of concerned parents. Other pisses both guilty and innocent parents off.

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889565)

A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.

Whoa, THAT strawman snuck up outta nowhere!

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889779)

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

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (1)

BootysnapChristAlive (2629837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889771)

where today's children face far bigger threat from their parents' and relatives' abuse

I suspect it isn't much of a threat, since a grand majority of people aren't murderers/rapists/abusers.

A subject that's very unsexy to talk about in libertrarian pipe dreams, I know.

Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to want to be free from corrupt governments? Is it really just a libertarian pipe dream to accept that some casualties happen, but not everyone needs to be punished/harassed by the government because of it?

Re:Children Don't Need Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889163)

This is one of the points clearly outlined by the EU 'protect the children' document the summary mentions.

Pefias (1)

Yebyen (59663) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888781)

Does anyone have any details on Pefias? (Is it an acronym, what does it stand for)

Have they been developing it in secret? All I can find is some Spanish text, perhaps it's a Spanish word? And some diplomat who is convinced that "only [this] Pefias" can provide what they need. So, developed in secret.

Re:Pefias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889245)

From the summary, not even TFA:

"...a pan-European framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature (Pefias) framework."

Sheesh.

And, in other news... (5, Informative)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888797)

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.

Seriously... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888799)

Fuck off you Nazi bastards!

A modest proposition (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888819)

After reading a few paragraphs from the draft... i have a proposition for our EU overlords.

Instead of doing this, invest our money into cloning. Build a huge facility, supply enough funds to advance the research to point where human cloning is possible - then get your own clone. Establish a friendship with your clones, then take them out and treat them to a romantic dinner. After the dinner you should of course invite them back to your place, where you'd be finally able to go fuck yourself.

Trying to create excessively child-friendly world will result in having a world uninhabitable by adults. So yea, go fuck yourself.

Re:A modest proposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888881)

What makes you think the world they're trying to create will be child-friendly?

Re:A modest proposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888931)

I dont think that. I'm simply referring to all the stupid ideas that are getting pitched nowadays under the same header - kids are in danger.

Commission's plan to propose an e-ID announced (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888873)

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.

I hope Occupy Wall St embraces it (0)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888877)

As they fawn prostrate at the feet at all things EU. Never mind it's more intrusive than the Voter ID laws they loathe.

Requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888889)

Let's see what the framework covers and how. The mere electronic signature only establishes identify; it doesn't mean you agreed to the transaction you signature is on. Your malware-infested computer will display one thing, take your signature and then send a completely different transaction to the server.

It's akin to a boss I once had. When he was traveling, he left us blank sheets with his signatures on them so we wouldn't be blocked by bureaucracy in his absense but could print out whatever authorizations were required. Your computer is a blank sheet with your e-ID signature on it.

I think what's needed is a nonreprogrammable, government-issued smart card with a touchscreen. The card would display the important details of the transaction (amount of money, certified recipient) that you are committing to. Moreover, that smart card should have public specifications so it can be integrated with free software. (The Nordic bank Nordea recently introduced a similar e-ID system that depends on Windows.)

The devil is in the details. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888935)

It can be an easy-to-use system that is not obligatory for everything, just for government-related tasks, or it could be obligatory just to browse. In the latter case, it is certainly about surveillance and big brother, rather than anything else.

Finally... but not far enough (5, Interesting)

staalmannen (1705340) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888951)

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).

Re:Finally... but not far enough (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889315)

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.

Re:Finally... but not far enough (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889867)

It's a choice Europe makes to keep political units that make sense when most people were serfs tied to the land. Sooner or later old divisions I'd think these will go away.

Probably later.

Re:Finally... but not far enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890011)

Well, I can see that. Now if only the thing would protect your privacy instead of protect the state's interest in tracking your every move. The subtle mentioning of "protecting children" in the vicinity means that pretty soon you'll need this pan-european electronic biometric identity tracking card whenever you go online, just to prove you're not secretly turned into a child since last time you proved you weren't a child. Like how the UK has now repeatedly proposed to make all internet connections default to filtered no-adult-content mode.

For those shenanigans alone I no longer trust any government, much less a gaggle plus attached extra pan-european bureaucrazies, with this sort of thing. I'll take the multiple ID cards instead, thanks. Though when I lived abroad-but-in-europe I made do with just the old ID card I already had.

Already happening (2)

thyristor pt (1507463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39888953)

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.

In other words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39888961)

We are going to cut off your arms and legs for your benefit. It will be better because you will take less space, so there will be more room in cars, and you will not need as much food, you can use a smaller bed, and use less bath water, and all that will save you money.

Re:In other words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889605)

Also, the procedure will make it much more difficult for you to harm your fellow citizens. Or challenge our authority.

Actually DO WANT (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889047)

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.

e-ID required to vote (2)

bazonic (463550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889145)

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.

Re:e-ID required to vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890255)

indeed, If I look at the belgian e-id card:

1) they use an established pki standard (sofar sogood)
2) the private key on that card is generated by a 3th party before you get it (yep, that violates the assumption on which the entire security of pki is based, you can't guarantee that that 3th party won't make a copy. and btw that 3th party is an ordinary company that's been taken over at least 3 times since the whole scheme started)

Here Comes the Mark of the Beast (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889425)

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
(Revelation 13:16-18)

Every day... (1)

Notlupus (1893060) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889433)

Every day I live in this country on this continent, I read the news and I get depressed, angered and scared. You can say what you want but if this bullshit keeps continuing we will be living in George Orwells 2012, I guarantee it.

Typical for the European Commission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889435)

And you can be sure that there's just one company supplying all the necessary toys (chips + electronics + protocols + know-how + certifications + seminars). Perhaps one of the companies a former German minister of the Interior was involved with?

I'm so fed up with this corrupt bunch of criminals that is the European Commission -- bah.

(Making use of my dwindling means of posting anonymously)

Numbers Are Awesome! (2)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889481)

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

Chip failure (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889623)

E-id, knowing what was going to happen i waited one year to get mine, 40 months later the chip broke, i had to ask pre internet paper forms to fill in a tax form. Replacing it is free if i am happy with three visits to the administration and one month of patience. For 250€ i can get a next day copy. Am i still a citizen without my chip?

Authentication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889865)

Authentication - Protecting children from bogey monsters coming from teh interwebz since 2012.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Forehead or right hand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39889871)

Just asking.

Someday it will be both: Our DNA will be our universal ID.

At least for those of us who aren't chimeras.

A little offtopic, but... (2)

davidshewitt (1552163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39889973)

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?

Zee paperz! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890021)

Ver ar ur paprz!

Standard Political Bullsh*t (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890205)

"Think of the children!"

Yeah, I'm thinking of them growing up and voting yo punk ass into oblivion.

think of (yourselves as) children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890497)

Any initiative that begins with protecting the people's children will eventually lead to protecting the people as children.

That's it. (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39890259)

I will renounce my citizenship if this goes through.

It's typical for the EU (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39890389)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?