Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet Technology

European e-ID Announced 155

Posted by samzenpus
from the papers-please dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European e-ID Announced

Comments Filter:
  • Mandatory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:11AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by c0mpliant (1516433) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:30AM (#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.
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cornjones (33009) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:49AM (#39888945) Homepage

          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...

          • 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.

          • by Anonymous Coward

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

          • by tkalfigo (1448133)
            You are joking, right? Just because you don't see marching tanks in the streets, doesn't mean it's not a form of war. Let alone Germany that would under no circumstances allow it's name be blemished with YAW. But don't kid yourself; that's the new form of warfare: absolute and transparent financial control.
        • Re:Mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)

          by c0mpliant (1516433) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:54AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday May 04, 2012 @08:18AM (#39889253) Journal

            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.

            • That's an interesting theory. It will be even more interesting to see whether it survives the French presidential election and the next major round of elections in Germany. If M. Hollande wins the presidency and makes good on his position to renegotiate the current agreements on European finances, that could be serious political trouble for Frau Merkel, who is already facing an uphill struggle at the next election. If she fails to win another term, the two big powerhouses who have driven the austerity agend

              • Oh come on. What happens if France repudiates th Franco-German relationship. It goes broke in a hurry. France needs that German economic engine just as much as the PIIGS (which is awfully close to including Belgium and the Netherlands as well). The only thing that will stop this is the German voter deciding they don't want to back the scheme. That may very well happen. But France, she's in no position to negotiate anything. If the Germans decide to pull back, France will almost instantly become a catastroph

          • by Asic Eng (193332)

            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 (Score:5, Informative)

              by c0mpliant (1516433) on Friday May 04, 2012 @09:03AM (#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.
      • by sdnoob (917382)

        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by c0mpliant (1516433) on Friday May 04, 2012 @08:25AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lordholm (649770)

            "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 usuall

      • Re:Mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by moeinvt (851793) on Friday May 04, 2012 @08:05AM (#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.

        • 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.

          True, and at the time of creation or shortly after, it would most likely have been possible for a state to leave that agreement unilaterally without too much issue. However, over the years, things got more complicated as group funds and efforts were used for projects. What about the land of the Lousiana Purchase for example? What about Texas which had been added to the union after a war with Mexico to secure their borders and freedom paid for mostly with Northern money and lives just ten years before they l

      • by cayenne8 (626475)

        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Asic Eng (193332) on Friday May 04, 2012 @08:32AM (#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.

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        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 pr

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          And why would you be happier with a more federalistic Union if you don't trust your own government to begin with?

          Neither Governor Ryan nor Governor Blago would be in prison were it not for the Federal government. You think the Feds are corrupt? Have a look at Illinois' government.

      • by lordholm (649770)

        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 m

      • 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?

      • by Xest (935314)

        What makes you say all this? from my point of view the EU seems to come up with much saner laws than most individual member states.

        Most states have signed up to ACTA for example yet the EU looks set to derail those signings. I suppose you can argue this infringes individual sovereignty but it's certainly not in a bad way - it implies the EU hasn't been corrupted by corporate interests to anywhere near the extent national governments have.

        The same goes for things like consumer rights (mandatory 2 year warran

    • 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.

  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:14AM (#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.
    • by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by foobsr (693224) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:36AM (#39888837) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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?
        • by foobsr (693224)

          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.

      • by jps25 (1286898)

        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.

        • by elewton (1743958)

          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.

          • by jps25 (1286898)

            If you're claiming that one has to carry the Ausweis or the passport on one's person, then you're wrong.
            In any case, you're a cute one.

    • 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.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        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.

        Except, it seems to operate in reverse.

        From a legal standpoint, once someone says "for the children", they win. The rest of us are just nutters at that point since it's not about rational debate any more.

    • by Gilmoure (18428)

      What? Facebook login's not good enough?

  • by GeneralTurgidson (2464452) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:22AM (#39888707)
    Authentication is just a requirement of those two.
    • What's the EU going to do with tracking and logging that Doubleclick isn't already doing?

  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:27AM (#39888759) Homepage

    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Luckyo (1726890)

      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.

      • by Kidbro (80868)

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

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          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.

      • 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?

        • by Luckyo (1726890) on Friday May 04, 2012 @10:08AM (#39890583)

          By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents. Yet another rather nasty piece of reality for you.

          Also, yes, it is. Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent. The only non-oppressing form of governing is anarchy. Every other form is oppressive to varying extent, because to exert control is to oppress freedom to not be controlled.

          We have a very good example of how that works in Somalia. Power vacuum left by government will simply be filled in other ways, typically far more oppressive. They just won't be called "government". That's the reality of the libertarian dream, and why libertarian dream is in fact a pipe dream as proven by history of humanity thousands of times over. Like communism, it would work very if people were beings naturally inclined to think of greater good over short term personal benefit.

          Alas...

          • By the same measure, much bigger majority of people aren't child abusers as compared to just parents.

            Yes...?

            Every government, by definition must oppress to some extent.

            Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. But that absolutely does not mean we should give them unlimited power. What power we do give them must be necessary and small. We must never let them engage in collective punishment (even if it's "for the children"), and we must never let them infringe upon our rights (again, even if it's "for the children").

            Then again, I'm not really sure what your point was. But I've seen people who believe that because the government has the ability to do X, it should also h

            • The US is not and likely never will be Somalia just from limiting the government's power and not allowing it to violate our rights.

              Somalia is full of dirty pirates. According to the sponsors of SOPA, the US is also full of dirty pirates. Therefore US=Somalia.

  • by Yebyen (59663)

    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.

  • by DeathToBill (601486) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:31AM (#39888797) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:40AM (#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.

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

  • 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.

  • by staalmannen (1705340) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:51AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • 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.

  • 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.
  • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Friday May 04, 2012 @07:59AM (#39889047) Journal
    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.
  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 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.
    • Oh pish posh.

      You aren't going to see an orwellian dystopia. So stop worrying.

      Be brave.
      Don't fear what is new.
      No orwellian gov will run this world.

  • by tunapez (1161697) on Friday May 04, 2012 @08:36AM (#39889481)

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

  • 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?
  • by davidshewitt (1552163) on Friday May 04, 2012 @09:17AM (#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?
  • "Think of the children!"

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

  • I will renounce my citizenship if this goes through.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2012 @09:52AM (#39890389)

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

  • Disclaimer: I'm not trying to argue for or against, just looking for some more understanding.

    Why is having to use an e-id an issue? Most people have already given up their identity and all personal information willingly on social/cloud services.

    Is it that The Zuck/Sergei/Tim Cook/Bezos/Ballmer/... looks more trustworthy than the government to have all that information? I mean it is feasible that the government could actually use the data for something good like stopping a terrorist attack or pinching some c

    • by tnk1 (899206)

      Why is having to use an e-id an issue? Most people have already given up their identity and all personal information willingly on social/cloud services.

      Because it's not the same thing. Yes, millions of stupid people have given all that information away on their pages. I have not. Are you saying that its okay that I can't have my privacy because the rest of the population is too ignorant to protect theirs?

      The worst part about this is: No Child Was Protected In the Making of This Provision.

      I mean, sure kiddy porn shows up on the internet, but the Internet isn't what produces it. Sickos with cameras and access to children do that. The children are not hu

    • Because "The Zuck" cannot go into a back room and pass a law which makes you a criminal based on the data in your record. A government can. And then it's too late to go back and NOT give over the data....
      • by csumpi (2258986)

        And you don't think that The Zuck would give up the data if the government asked for it? Or that Sergei's not taking on government contracts?

        It seems to me that the sole purpose of data collection is to sell that data. Or am I missing something?

  • by houghi (78078) on Friday May 04, 2012 @11:46AM (#39891971)

    In Belgium this is nothing new. We already have it. I hope they will adapt the Belgian type as it is open source, everybody can write programs and/or get a reader to see what is on it.
    And with Open Source I mean Windows, Mac and Linux can read your software.
    http://eid.belgium.be/en/ [belgium.be] and direct link to the developer stuff:
    http://eid.belgium.be/en/developing_eid_applications/eid_software_development_kit/ [belgium.be]
    Want an add-on for Firefox? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/belgium-eid/ [mozilla.org]

    In Belgium it is already law to have an ID on you.
    Besides alcohol control and once running a red light (Got a warning, not a ticket for the red light. Got a key chain for the negative alcohol control) I am one of the few people that I know who has been stopped by police at what looked at random.

    I gave my papers, they checked them and then gave them back. A day later I saw them doing the same to a guy who was dressed similar like me the day before with a similar build and haircut, so they were clearly looking for somebody specific.

    The only downside at this moment is that the law did not caught up yet. So for many contracts we still need to send in a signed paper. No scanning and no faxing. In other countries the same can be done by a mere phone call.

    If they would allow the e-ID as a rightful signature, that would help a lot. The technoligy already exists.

    • by Cederic (9623)

      I know who I am. I don't need to carry ID to remind myself.

      If the police stop and ask me, I tell them who I am. I ask who they are. I don't demand to see papers that prove it.

      Why should I be forced to adopt your totalitarian system, just to make life easier for you? Fuck you and your cherry flavoured beer.

      (Which caused my Belgian friends great amusement, as I found it tasty despite being heterosexual and walking around the town with no ID on me. Shit, the worse that could've happened would've been getting d

      • by houghi (78078)

        If the police stop and ask me, I tell them who I am. I ask who they are. I don't demand to see papers that prove it.

        If police stops me, I ask them for ID. Have done so a few times.

  • The Internet has been made to detect problems and route around it. It has always done so and will probably do so again with this silly proposal. Blocking websites hasn't worked one bit, blocking P2P traffic has proven impossible and now they want people to only get online if they give up their anonymity? I doubt this is going to ever get air borne if no website except a few government sites will ever require it.

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.

Working...