> 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.
If no-one kicks up a fuss that means they agree with it. You'll be amazed how quickly people educate themselves on something they actually give a shit about.
If you live outside the EU, you can usually vote in the EU elections in your home country's embassy or consulate. However, some countries don't allow you to vote from outside your home country.
Inside EU you vote in your country of residence or in the country you have citizenship. You can choose.
If you move out of EU you vote in your home country. I guess the exact procedure depends on your home country, some allow mail ballots others require you to come to the embassy.
Don't know if you are asking this because of general interest or if it's specific for this MP, so just FYI: While your opinion might align with him on this topic he has some very outspoken opinions on other topics where you might have a different opinion (or not).
For example Rob Roos is also an very outspoken anti-vaccine and against climate legislation.
We worry less about other people’s money from this side of the ocean. You lack the consistency to make a statement of support/opposition about all privacy, because like other Europeans, you feel the need to make exceptions for cases that benefit you.
> I am not optimistic. But it is not too late yet. Parliament still has to vote about this. Let your MEP know that you oppose the Digital Identity and that you want your MEP to vote against it!
This is not about payments or crypto, eID is the electronic identity card system which also allows you to "Sign in with eID" (like Sign in with Apple) on government websites and organizations that require your real identity to provide service.
And we all know how things go from there.
First, eID is implemented as "just another, more convenient way to log in to your online services". Then, private organizations get pressure to implement eID (through soft power or legislation). Major forums and news websites adopt eID. As the user base grows, legacy semi-anonymous ID systems get decommissioned progressively (i.e. simple email). Now every action you perform on the Internet, and every opinion you post is directly tied to your legal ID. Authorities can use that to prosecute dissenters, oppress voices and narratives contrary to their interests. The bad guys will still have their spaces as they will use their own tech.
Call me a conspiracist, cynic or pessimistic, but in some countries like the UK people are getting police visits for having the wrong opinion on Twitter. We're giving authoritarians way too much space and tools for oppression. We're building a shitty world where the powerful class will have even more power to do as they wish, and the man in the street have less and less rights and tools to fight against power.
What anonymity?
eID is used by government services (which already know who you are because they issue your ID in the first place) and 3rd parties which rely on this identity. They only get access to data they need, you always have overview and control of it, right to be forgotten etc.
Yes but it enables services like facebook to do ID validation on everyone. It'll be much harder to stay anonymous because it removes a barrier to identifying oneself.
It starts with the government's own services but random third party operators are not ruled out, this is a fundamental building block for an "internet access pass" for all but the most niche sites like this one.
Right now Facebook only asks for ID in case of obvious fake names, because it's a huge barrier to ask people to send theirs just to create an account. This should remain a barrier.
Because it's controlled by the state and the state has an agenda that goes against my freedoms.
I'm not looking forward to my purchases being declined because I ate too much beef already, travelled too much, or was caught demonstrating next to people the state does not like.
And your credit/debit card isn't (indirectly) controlled by the state? I don't see how this would be different from the current status quo, so many places are card only that the state could already control all of this.
And your credit/debit card isn't (indirectly) controlled by the state?
Not speaking for the person you asked. My cards are not directly controlled by the state however Visa and Mastercard share all the sales with my government that wants to know how many firearms people buy, how much ammunition and how often it is purchased. [1] I honestly do not know what they do with the data as they haven't intervened in any of the tragic events of late. Anyway that is why I stick with cash and avoid buying things online when I can get them locally. No need for Uncle Sam to keep track of my purchases of inflatable sheep and Velcro mittens which I have no doubt have a special category.
If a state wants to do something to you, it will, just look at russia/china.
The way to defeat that is to vote/get involved/move to countries that are free.
Right now, your scenario is entirely plausible but is not reality, why?
The digital currency just moves power from private entities (visa/mastercard) to governments. Visa/mastercard are actually banning payments already to things like porn and so on, perhaps digital currency will have less moral policing, perhaps it will be anonymous, i havent found any technical details yet
The key difference between governments and Visa/Mastercard is that the government has the monopoly on violence. They can force you to do things, with guns. Giving them direct control over your day to day spending is a solid step towards authoritarianism.
> Giving them direct control over your day to day spending is a solid step towards authoritarianism.
They already have that control via Visa/Mastercard, banks, limits on max amount of cash for transactions, limits on inter state travel with large amounts of cash, and so on... and the world is not authoritarian in the west. In the east it is, and they still have cash.
Voting for wrong people leads to authoritarianism... Or russia invading you and placing their puppets in charge or revolutions...
I'd rephrase the GP's point slightly: the modern states are mutating right now from a sort of giant "octopus" with a few blunt "tentacles" such as police and the military, into a giant "centipede" with millions of thin and far reaching tentacles. The old state had no capacity or ability to micromanage its subjects, e.g. if someone bought weed with cash, the state couldn't even see it, but the new state will try to micromanage and control everyone, because that's the very nature of the state.
No, the state is what GUARANTEES your freedoms. This entire fiction of freedom without a state is absurd. Without a state there is no clean running water, no energy security, no protection from criminals, no roads, no school teaching your kids to read, ...
That said you need a balance, but this total opposition to the state doing anything new to face new problems or offer new solutions is just a naive ideology.
The reality now is that many consumer purchases are datamined by MasterCard/Visa. Having it mined by just European central banks is a strict improvement.
Everyone commenting against it are just following the bandwagon that "controlled b the state = bad". No one has a compelling argument against the implementation proposal.
I don't think this is as a red flag as the other EU proposal which are very threatening to privacy and security, like Chat Control and the mandatory EU-wide government CA root certificate.
EDIT: a quick search shows up that this can actually be the eIDAS. if it's the latter, it's a big problem.
The part of the eIDAS that's problematic is the enforced browser certificate configuration which is just one aspect of the whole thing (and probably will be removed from the final version).
Conspiracy theories aside, having my electronic id recognized anywhere in the EU will save a lot of "scan and upload a PDF of your ID" moments. Not to mention the convenience of managing access to my data from the comfort of my sofa.
I agree with that. Several countries already have their own electronic ID - Estonia, Netherlands (they have a digital wallet app available on F-Droid), Italy.
This is just standardization, which is a benefit.
The eIDAS problem is not even about having a root certificate in place but severely lowering the bar for the security aspects of the root certificates and mandating browsers to accept it even if those certificates use weak cryptographic algorithms.
Funny how when it comes to EU themselves, it OK to skimp on the security. But when it us, we have to abide by 1000x different EN certs, that are either outdated, unreasonable or unnecessary.
In general, I am losing my trust and positive view on EU..
Don't buy the simplified narrative... it's a complex process and this is far from a final text. Moreover, the legislative bodies legislate principles, the implementation still will need to be done by technical experts in a secure way.
No disagreement in substance but I want to stress that the things you mention are all by different entities. The EU is basically a meta government (supranational organisation) with the commission playing the role of government and ministries, accompanied by a parliament and the council of member state ministers/heads of state as upper house, and then various agencies and bodies you'd also expect to see nationally.
EU would be when there's a final legislation, before that it is largely proposals (commission) or individual instituripns' views (parliament or council) and often various other entities are also cited as 'eu' positions even when they only represent a certain position/role or often even are just lobbies (BusinessEurope for example).
All this just to say that often what is given as an "EU view" is not actuall a consensus but a proposal or negotiating position.
- Since "forever", laws apply to a specific PHYSICAL region (that's the basis for a concept of "government", be it democracy or other). These laws are enforced by "law enforcement forces", starting with "border law inforcement forces"
- Between "etatic entities" there is "treaties" agreed by parties
- But "the Internet" messed everything up: suddenly no law could be enforced because the was no VIRTUAL region with a "government" matching the PHYSICAL region
Different governement solved this problem with different solutions:
- China / Russia... used some kind of "Great firewall"
- US used some kind of "soft power" (owning the main infrastructure + main economic actors + extraterritorial laws)
Europe decided to find a mix between those: limiting US "soft power" with more rules (DSA, DMA), trying to develop European economic competitor... and limiting people abilty to escape to a "lawless internet with anonimity"
> - China / Russia... used some kind of "Great firewall"
Also add to the list UK, DE, CH, IT, BG, probably others in Euro area.
Implementation varies, but most of the time DNS level blocking, sometimes plain old ACL to block IP. Varies on country-per-country basis.
Source - I consult ISPs across the world (fortunately not about blocking).
57 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadIf you move out of EU you vote in your home country. I guess the exact procedure depends on your home country, some allow mail ballots others require you to come to the embassy.
For example Rob Roos is also an very outspoken anti-vaccine and against climate legislation.
That is a really privacy nightmare.
It starts with the government's own services but random third party operators are not ruled out, this is a fundamental building block for an "internet access pass" for all but the most niche sites like this one.
Right now Facebook only asks for ID in case of obvious fake names, because it's a huge barrier to ask people to send theirs just to create an account. This should remain a barrier.
https://www.eid.as/
It seems like an EU backed cryptocurrency, that could be implemented like monero and be fairly private or like bitcoin with public ledger,
It could also be like credit/debit cards which are already used everywhere...
I'm not looking forward to my purchases being declined because I ate too much beef already, travelled too much, or was caught demonstrating next to people the state does not like.
You're just replacing who controls the currency in the end.
Aslo, try and make a large cash deposit somewhere and see how many questionaires you have to fill in.
Control over cash payments us already a reality.
Jerome, is that you?
Not speaking for the person you asked. My cards are not directly controlled by the state however Visa and Mastercard share all the sales with my government that wants to know how many firearms people buy, how much ammunition and how often it is purchased. [1] I honestly do not know what they do with the data as they haven't intervened in any of the tragic events of late. Anyway that is why I stick with cash and avoid buying things online when I can get them locally. No need for Uncle Sam to keep track of my purchases of inflatable sheep and Velcro mittens which I have no doubt have a special category.
[1] - https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/09/behind-the-decis...
The way to defeat that is to vote/get involved/move to countries that are free.
Right now, your scenario is entirely plausible but is not reality, why?
The digital currency just moves power from private entities (visa/mastercard) to governments. Visa/mastercard are actually banning payments already to things like porn and so on, perhaps digital currency will have less moral policing, perhaps it will be anonymous, i havent found any technical details yet
They already have that control via Visa/Mastercard, banks, limits on max amount of cash for transactions, limits on inter state travel with large amounts of cash, and so on... and the world is not authoritarian in the west. In the east it is, and they still have cash.
Voting for wrong people leads to authoritarianism... Or russia invading you and placing their puppets in charge or revolutions...
That said you need a balance, but this total opposition to the state doing anything new to face new problems or offer new solutions is just a naive ideology.
I don't think this is as a red flag as the other EU proposal which are very threatening to privacy and security, like Chat Control and the mandatory EU-wide government CA root certificate.
EDIT: a quick search shows up that this can actually be the eIDAS. if it's the latter, it's a big problem.
Conspiracy theories aside, having my electronic id recognized anywhere in the EU will save a lot of "scan and upload a PDF of your ID" moments. Not to mention the convenience of managing access to my data from the comfort of my sofa.
Single one-time authentication flow makes so much more sense from security viewpoint.
This is just standardization, which is a benefit.
The eIDAS problem is not even about having a root certificate in place but severely lowering the bar for the security aspects of the root certificates and mandating browsers to accept it even if those certificates use weak cryptographic algorithms.
EU would be when there's a final legislation, before that it is largely proposals (commission) or individual instituripns' views (parliament or council) and often various other entities are also cited as 'eu' positions even when they only represent a certain position/role or often even are just lobbies (BusinessEurope for example).
All this just to say that often what is given as an "EU view" is not actuall a consensus but a proposal or negotiating position.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
I'm not sure what to think about this strategy.
On one hand they do seem to be trying to put together a unified coherent system.
On the other there's a lot of experts saying they're making a hash of it.
- Since "forever", laws apply to a specific PHYSICAL region (that's the basis for a concept of "government", be it democracy or other). These laws are enforced by "law enforcement forces", starting with "border law inforcement forces"
- Between "etatic entities" there is "treaties" agreed by parties
- But "the Internet" messed everything up: suddenly no law could be enforced because the was no VIRTUAL region with a "government" matching the PHYSICAL region
Different governement solved this problem with different solutions:
- China / Russia... used some kind of "Great firewall"
- US used some kind of "soft power" (owning the main infrastructure + main economic actors + extraterritorial laws)
Europe decided to find a mix between those: limiting US "soft power" with more rules (DSA, DMA), trying to develop European economic competitor... and limiting people abilty to escape to a "lawless internet with anonimity"
Also add to the list UK, DE, CH, IT, BG, probably others in Euro area. Implementation varies, but most of the time DNS level blocking, sometimes plain old ACL to block IP. Varies on country-per-country basis. Source - I consult ISPs across the world (fortunately not about blocking).