EU Exploring Idea of Using Government ID Cards As Mandatory Online Logins (softpedia.com) 367
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Softpedia: Fears that fake online reviews might ruin the consumer market and damage legitimate businesses are making the European Commission consider the idea of forcing all EU citizens to log into online accounts using their government-issued ID cards. Details about these plans can be found in a proposal named "Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges," announced on May 25, 2016. According to this document, "online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognized by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards." The reasoning, according to the EU, is that "online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews."
Death to anonyminity (Score:4, Interesting)
While I think that, since we're all carrying chip & pin cards, that they should be useable as login credentials, they should not, in any way, be mandatory.
Re:Death to anonyminity (Score:5, Interesting)
While I think that, since we're all carrying chip & pin cards, that they should be useable as login credentials,
I don't see how that solves anything. My daughter makes money writing fake reviews, and she uses her real name. At most, an identity check will prevent someone from posting more than one review about the same product, but with millions of products and millions of reviewers, that is not much of a limitation.
Re:Death to anonyminity (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it solves everything, since the purpose is the destruction of unwanted opinion. Anything they don't like (such as cricicism of the EU, immigration, islam, etc.) and wham - it's hate speech, and you are gone. Disappeared from the internet, which in this day and age of electronic communication is about as good as being disappeared to Siberia.
Did you think Juncker was joking when he said he would do _everything_ before 'allowing' a right-wing party to govern in any European nation?
Internet has been the uncontrolled factor, the thorn in the globalists hide, the one thing they couldn't get their fingers on. It allowed people to discuss and organize themselves, away from their control zones. And here we have the first attempt at putting an end to all that. If we allow this, we will be their slaves for all eternity.
We desperately need a bill of rights in Europe, and it needs to contain things like the right to privacy and the right to anonimity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe, or rather, the EU, in its current form, is not really much more than a concentration of bribes. Instead of having to bribe a lot of small nations, you have an easy central hub where to insert your bribes.
Aside of that, there is little benefit.
Re: Death to anonyminity (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiight. I suppose the vacuum manufacturers who complained bitterly about the new EU regulations and mandatory testing/labelling standards that finally allowed consumers to accurately compare models just didn't bribe them enough to avoid getting it passed.
And poor Microsoft, fined billions of Euros over the years, surely it would have been cheaper to just up their bribe budget a little. Maybe once the scandal broke in the US, it became impossible for VW to maintain it's on-going bribery that allowed it to cheat on emissions. Those mobile phone companies too, surely the losses from having to remove ridiculous roaming fees must outweigh the size of the bribe the EU demanded... If not, clearly the EU is doing bribery wrong.
What really surprises me is that Switzerland, a country with plenty of money and a history of dodgy dealing, didn't manage to bribe its way into the EU's financial markets. They tried to negotiate a deal but the EU wouldn't make any concessions on banking rules, so I guess the brown envelope just wasn't fat enough.
Hmm, none of this makes much sense. Could it be that the EU isn't totally corrupt?!
Re: Death to anonyminity (Score:4, Interesting)
Europe, or rather, the EU, in its current form, is not really much more than a concentration of bribes. Instead of having to bribe a lot of small nations, you have an easy central hub where to insert your bribes.
Aside of that, there is little benefit.
Of course, regulations that enable and protect local small businesses and exclude competition raise costs for consumers and are probably even more corrupting at the local level... so there is that.
To my perspective, good regulations are the ones that level the playing field between local businesses and large businesses with simple rules everyone can follow and don't rely as much on the preemptive discretion of regulators to enable business with licenses and permits (which is where a good portion of corruption is generated). Punishing bad actors, ones that break simple rules on health and safety, should be the focus of regulation.
Bad regulations are ones that go too far in either direction and create a labyrinth of regulation for the purpose of regulatory capture and protectionism of various sorts. Prior certifications, licenses and permits are at the heart of public corruption and regulatory capture and should be avoided for all but a last resort.
Put simply laws that put too much discretion in the hands of regulators undermine the rule of law.
Better to set simple regulations that are easy to follow and enforce, focus on public health, safety and market fairness.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you still on here telling us about your failure to teach your daughter any morals?
Re:Death to anonyminity (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, the next data breach, everyone has your official government password!
Europe, the New China (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we go all the way back, and make people wearing the Star of David for easy identification?
Europe criticizes China when the Communist Regime mandated that everyone who register for their weibo services must use their real name
The European parliament mourned for the loss of free speech in China, and poured money to support 'Chinese dissidents', even to the tune of awarding the noble prize to a certain Chinese writer (I read his books, in the Mandarin language, they were pure trash) just because he happens to be a 'Chinese dissident'
And no, I am not a supporter of the Communist Regime of China. I was an opponent of the CCP, and still am
The thing is, if Europe criticized China for the death of freedom they (Europeans) better don't repeat what the CCP has done
sigh!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't get it - the reason EU criticizes China or Russia for lack of freedom is not actually because it wants the people to have freedom. The problem with China for the EU is that it's not EU that is tracking the people of China.
Thy said that in the USSR you were tracked by KGB - I'm sure the KGB did not even dream of the tracking capabilities of modern "democratic freedom-loving" governments of today.
One day the EU will be renamed to Democratic Union of Free Democratic European Republics for Freedom and
Re:Europe, the New China (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't have the technology to data-mine. Even if all TVs were bugged, you would still need a lot of people actually listening - no speech recognition or automatic flagging of "interesting" recordings.
So, they had to choose who to bug, even tapping all phone conversations (could be easily done technologically back then) would require a lot of manpower.
And now we have - speech recognition, data mining for phone conversations and text messages. A lot of information put online on facebook and similar by the people themselves. Bugged PCs, cell phones with location tracking and so on.
To accomplish that in the 1970s or 80s would probably have required the KGB to be big enough to become a nation on its own.
Re:Europe, the New China (Score:4, Informative)
As usual this is the tech media completely failing at politics, as it does with just about every proposed bill related to technology ever.
I don't really have any idea how the word "mandatory" made it into the headline of the Slashdot, or original article because it's completely fabricated.
All that's being talked about is an optional government backed verified user scheme so that someone submitting a review can choose whether they want to add their official verification to it or not. It'd be up to sites then to determine how they weight verified reviews, some may choose to only allow submitting verified reviews, others might treat verified reviews no different to anonymous reviews other than to shove a little visual verified flag on the review, and others again may list verified reviews top, or only include verified ratings in overall averages whilst leaving anonymous reviews visible or some combination thereof.
This is why Slashdot has become so irrelevant in the world today, it spends so much of it's time arguing about bad political ideas that aren't even being proposed. There are certainly bad sides to things like the right to be forgotten, RIPA, and so on, and yet Slashdot regularly argues against and refers to provisions that simply just don't even exist within them which begs the question, what's the point? If we argued against actual bad parts of legislation then there may be some value, but arguing aganist things that aren't real as is the case here, making absurd comparisons between the EU and China based on nothing other than the fact you've grossly misunderstood the proposal because all you did was read the incorrect headline is just a completely nonsensical waste of time.
Slashdot might as well give up on politics related posts, because everytime something political is published here it's rife with misunderstanding, and people start expressing their outrage at things that aren't even proposed or law.
People on Slashdot have long railed against propaganda, and misleading headlines, and yet here they are falling for exactly that every single time a political story is posted to Slashdot that's factually incorrect. You think you're all independent thinkers, you think you're smart, but you repeatedly all fall for this propaganda, you see a headline and jump on it arguing against it and so arguing against the institution behind it, and that's exactly what the europhobes that created the original false headline about it being mandatory wanted you to do. You're suckers to the propaganda, you're unthinking sheep to the machine. You fell for this misleading headline hook, line, and sinker, and did what they wanted you to do - you extended it to argue against the EU as a whole based on a completely fabricated falsehood.
Question more and parrot less, and perhaps you'll be able to raise the level of intellectual debate on this site to where it used to be. No one gives a shit about arguments against things that aren't even true because they're entirely meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
The European parliament and the commission are two very different things. The parliament is chosen directly by the people, the commission is appointed by the governments, which in turn are in most EU countries indirectly chosen by the parliaments. In practice, the commission tends to be anti-democratic and operating without much oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't we go all the way back, and make people wearing the Star of David for easy identification?
Europe criticizes China when the Communist Regime mandated that everyone who register for their weibo services must use their real name
The European parliament mourned for the loss of free speech in China, and poured money to support 'Chinese dissidents', even to the tune of awarding the noble prize to a certain Chinese writer (I read his books, in the Mandarin language, they were pure trash) just because he happens to be a 'Chinese dissident'
And no, I am not a supporter of the Communist Regime of China. I was an opponent of the CCP, and still am
The thing is, if Europe criticized China for the death of freedom they (Europeans) better don't repeat what the CCP has done
sigh!
Before any more people have an epileptic fit over this let's keep in mind that somewhere between the original article and the Slashdot summary the line:
"European Commission is exploring the theoretical possibilities of forcing online review platforms and EU citizens into using government IDs as online identities."
followed by:
"In its present form, the document has little chance of passing through the European Parliament, being clearly written by a person who didn't take all factors into account.
b
A dichotomy of comprehension (Score:3, Interesting)
I do read the comments here and have realize a dichotomy of responses to the same article
Those from the West side of the Pond (USA) tend to see this as a creeping danger, a slippery slope that will end up gobbling up the rights of the individuals
Those from the Right side of the Pond (Europe), on the other hand, tend to espouse your point of view --- that the entire thing is nothing but an 'encouragement', a mere 'suggestion', with 'check and balances', and so on, and so forth
A guy even lament that we from t
Re: (Score:2)
I still find it amazing how many here on Slashdot want to do away with anonymity.
For the reviews... (Score:2, Insightful)
First they came for the reviews, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the online blogs, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the shoppers, and I did not speak out,
Then they came for slashdotters, and I did not speak out,
And there was nobody left to speak for me.
Re:For the reviews... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is basically my take. Remember all those folks who kept denigrating any argument against privacy intrusions as a "slippery slope fallacy?" Well, welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope. We've seen some similar rumblings in the US from time to time. Oddly, in the political arena there seems to be a large coalition that believes that all speech should be verifiable as to authorship - an area where anonymous speech has a long and important tradition. Actually, political speech is really the main reason that free speech has to be included in national founding documents.
Even more oddly, the same folks who beat the drums for this ID requirement seem to find the notion of proving your identity in order to vote an abomination.
I really can't figure out what people are thinking these days on this topic. All I know is that even a whiff of this sort of thing prior to the 1990's would have gotten you drummed off the stage. The image of "show me your papers" or a national ID card was the symbol of everything that was wrong about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I guess we've forgotten what that was like.
Slashdot proves that an online community can form with ID's completely independent of real world identity and still provide all of the credibility checks that real-world communities provide. I'm not sure why anyone would entertain these ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
This is basically my take. Remember all those folks who kept denigrating any argument against privacy intrusions as a "slippery slope fallacy?" Well, welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
Relax dude, it's a clickbait headline designed precised to invoke irrational emotional responses like you just gave.
I actually read the article, the proposal isn't a proposal at all, it is merely commentary on possible choices available if you wanted to more reliable online identities. Using Government issued ID is an available option, but nowhere did it recommend that.
Re: (Score:2)
"First thing you need is a Social Security and driver's license."
"Drivers license? For what, mass driver? Disk drive?"
And private ownership of unregistered modems had been legal back then.
Obscure?
Incentive (Score:3)
Because nothing helps the spread of knowledge and information like Big Brother watching every single thing that we do :|
I limit what I see and do on the internet based on the assumption that the Government is watching everything that we do already. :| )
( And I'm so damned boring I don't even break any laws
Once / if it becomes mandatory to log in with a Government approved ID card, I'll just cease using the internet at all.
My generation ( X ) is the last one who can remember a life without it. Considering the current state of the web as an advertising,
surveillance and malware distribution platform, I can't say I would miss it much.
the USA should do it too (Score:2)
so that jacks online cheese shop and have my SS (Score:2)
so that jacks online cheese shop and have my SS? just so I can login in?
What about jay's adult toy shop why should they have my real name?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you haven't memorized it yet? I memorized mine over forty years ago and still remember it. I wish I could say the same for my cell phone number, but then, the only time I need to know it is when I give it out to somebody and pretty much everybody who might need it already has it.
It's not the government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
...to make sure reviews are accurate. They aren't (nor should they be) the ones running the websites which record and display these reviews. Those websites are the ones who are responsible for making sure the reviews are real. The ones who do the best job are most likely to gain the most users.
It's called the free market. Let it happen, EU.
Of course I'm completely aware that review quality is not the reason behind this proposition, but it makes no sense that they would think that such a justification would make sense.
mandatory? (Score:3)
If this is such a great benefit for the consumer, then surely everyone will want to use one and making them "mandatory" is unnecessary.
Re:mandatory? (Score:5, Informative)
The only part can could be construed as 'mandatory' was the proposal to 'encourage' online platforms to accept these other forms of eID as valid.
Re: (Score:3)
There was nothing in the EU Commission communication about making it mandatory (for the consumer). That was the spin put on by the Softpedia article. The Commission proposal was about consumer choice as to the credentials they use, including National ID Cards.
The only part can could be construed as 'mandatory' was the proposal to 'encourage' online platforms to accept these other forms of eID as valid.
Let me repeat something here: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." (Juncker)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, TFA is complete bullshit. They even quote the real proposal before claiming it says something completely different. Since no-one RTFA I'll reproduce it here:
It is recognised that a multitude of username and password combinations is both inconvenient and a security risk. [...], in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
In other words, they want web sites to allow citizens to use their government IDs to log in, as well as other methods. That's dumb for its own reasons, but it's not an attempt to force people to identify themselves, it's a misguided attempt to make life easier for consumers. This is the sort of thing the EU loves, like standardizing on USB for char
why do governments have to get involved? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Amazon or eBay or Google wanted to adopt true name policies for online reviews, they could already do that (in fact, a few of them have "verified identities" and identify reviews with them). No national ID is needed, they just get it from the credit card info and verifying purchases. Obviously, they have decided that allowing pseudonymous reviews is better.
And unless you are a total idiot (like, apparently, Eurocrats are), you ought to be able to distinguish fake from true reviews fairly easily.
Re:why do governments have to get involved? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone online is making a politician's life miserable by pointing out his lies and broken promises, they can track him down and toss him in jail on trumped up charges as a way to shut him up.
I'll invoke the dogfooding rule here. If the government thinks this is such a great idea, why don't they go first. Require every staffer, speech writer, letter responder, etc. to attach their real name to everything they write. Someone decides your tax return is wrong? He has to attach is real name to the report. Every trial balloon that's floated? Has to have the political manager's name attached. All politicians' votes must be recorded too - no more voice votes. Try that for 5-10 years and if they don't mind, only then should you try it with the general public.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes, that is likely the real underlying motivation for the EU to want to destroy online anonymity: European elites hate it when the people think and speak for themselves.
I was just responding to the ostensible justification, namely that "fake online reviews" somehow "hurt businesses", and I was pointing ou
So where's the "require" part? (Score:5, Informative)
The Fine Document [europa.eu] says:
which sounds like it would, at most, require "online platforms" to allow the use of national ID cards as credentials, but says nothing about requiring users to use them as credentials.
Re: (Score:2)
it would, at most, require "online platforms" to allow the use of national ID cards as credentials, but says nothing about requiring users to use them as credentials.
Hey, quiet you!
The -pitchfork vendors- free speech non-bias enforcers will be checking up on you based on your login credentials, so watch it!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're reading that right. To me, that first part reads like throwaway text that has nothing to do with what follows, even though they're trying to pretend it does. Like this:
"European citizens are still very wary about government intrusion - so we recommend citizens are allowed to choose through which bodily orifice any mandatory probes are inserted through."
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you're reading that right. To me, that first part reads like throwaway text that has nothing to do with what follows, even though they're trying to pretend it does. Like this:
So by "I don't think you're reading that right" you mean "you're not reading into it what I'm reading into it".
Re:So where's the "require" part? (Score:5, Informative)
which sounds like it would, at most, require "online platforms" to allow the use of national ID cards as credentials, but says nothing about requiring users to use them as credentials.
Not even that. Page 11 of the document says what the European Commission is planning to do:
"In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation 39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own."
So, no requirements, only encouragements. And even if it would propose any requirements, every law the Commission proposes still has to make it through the European Parliament.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody will read that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clever people see it coming...
Some "clever" people see things that aren't there.
The Euros just don't get freedom (Score:2)
Re:The Euros just don't get freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry -- as evidenced in comments earlier about Ted Cruz's DNS stewardship bill, European elites would *never* do something like limit Europeans' online rights over something like criticizing religious zealots (Germany), or use their security apparatus to snoop virtually all Internet activity (UK), or outlaw the use of encryption (France), or require a three-strikes policy where someone can allege you pirated things three times to ban you from the Internet (France again). Only the American government does things like that. European governments are enlightened!</sarc>
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit and wild honey ... (Score:2)
... are different.
This is not wild honey.
This is a blantant ploy to legalize profits for big business.
Madadtory ID cards ? (Score:2)
Is there an existing mandatory EU ID card ? or would this be a new initiative in itself ? I also don't see how knowing who wrote the review would ensure a lack or bias or manipulation.
Dangerous data (Score:2)
When I see some of the possible outcomes of an election in the US, I have a strong interest in the government not being able to track everything I say or do online.
The present government isn't dangerous, but the collected information will endure and some day (soon?) we may have a government that will act against me for statements that were completely legal when they were made.
Dark Web? (Score:2)
If this idea goes forward and is widely embraced, then perhaps there will be two "Dark Webs" - the current one, (used mostly by criminals), and "Dark Web Lite". The latter will be used mostly by the new class of criminals created by the new legislation; namely, those who say "fuck that" to the whole misguided 'papers please!' version of the Internet and establish their own online territory where anonymity is honoured, and where government ID's aren't required and don't mean shit.
Should not be mandatory, but for validation (Score:2)
Muh profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism, drugs, pornography and other criminal activities were not enough to justify this. But threaten the bottom line of big business and suddenly Something Must Be Done.
No API, no verification, no auth, no lost rights (Score:3)
If you want to use your credit card to verify you know a name that matches a number and maybe two other numbers and a checksum, good for you. Any credit card processor will verify it for you *AND* if you're not a customer of one you can just go try and buy ANYTHING online and if the credit card checks out you can go and use it.
Government IDs are different and the systems that can verify them run everything from C# to Ada to Cobol. https://fcw.com/articles/2013/... [fcw.com]
There are -no- APIs to allow anyone to verify them, but moreover there won't be any APIs because OUR government doesn't want FOREIGN governments to be able to verify passports, SSNs, IDs, etc.
That same "concern" is shared by most every other country in the world. So right there you can kiss API verification goodbye.
Where does that leave us? Public-key? No... because that's not either
a) Government provided (read "verified and if they don't like you you can't have one")
b) Government authenticated (read "if you piss them off it won't verify" think Assange, Snowden, Aaron Schwartz, or ANYONE accused of a crime)
So given that governments won't provide an API, and we the free people don't want our ability to interact on the Internet taken away by ... or ... or
a) conscious act of government not wanting to auth you
b) government can't run a server well and it's not able to auth you
c) the contractor doing upgrades takes it down 6 hours each Sunday morning like some F** database servers...
this is a nonstarter.
E
SMS (Score:2)
Using the ID card is the end of privacy. Sooner or later more sites and applications would require the ID, and people getting used to give it on the Internet would not hesit
Won't stop fake reviews (Score:2)
Even if I am forced to use one, single, verified, form of identification (no matter whether this is as an EU citizen or not), there is STILL nothing that guarantees what I write in my review is truthful, accurate, competent, unbiased or consistent.
We would still get situations where suppliers offer "samples" to reviewers in return for them
The article is simply lying (Score:5, Informative)
However, the frequent practice of using oneâ(TM)s platform profile to access a range of websites and services often involves non-transparent exchanges and cross-linkages of personal data between various online platforms and websites. As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards. In other words: it wants to let consumers choose which authentication method they use, and they suggest online platforms should accept credencials issued by national authorities.
And why do they want the consumers to be able to use those credentials? Because (page 10):
It is recognised that a multitude of username and password combinations is both inconvenient and a security risk.
I wonder why the EU hating camp usually resorts to such dishonest bashing tactics (as if they weren't actual reasons to criticize the EU without having to spread lies).
Boy is it windy in this teacup... (Score:3)
Even if we all ignore that this is a suggestion, not something that would pass through the strong EU privacy rules etc.:
IN NO WAY DOES THE CURRENT TEXT INDICATE ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY!
" ... consumers SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms SHOULD ACCEPT credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards."
Or in other words: people should be able to choose to use ID cards as a credential online. - period
Not be forced to do so - the text is explicit that there have to be a choice from the consumer.
Because the people exist so corp can make profit (Score:3)
Suspicious timing (Score:3, Insightful)
With the UK in the thrall of EU referendum I can't help think this would be a non story at any other time.
Its alarming how keen the media is to stoke racist devisions , please treat them with the suspicion they are trying to make you feel about other races instead of accepting it as valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2, Insightful)
Shut the fuck up!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
The govts. have been itching for something like this since they realized they missed the boat on this venue of freedom of expression. I'm just surprised they're masking this "need" as just for honesty in reviews...after all...the terrorists and child predators are the problem, right?
Well, hey, it was good while it lasted...the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least they didn't used the ol "think of the children!!" bullshit this time.
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (Score:5, Insightful)
The cure is worse than the disease, and Orwell would be really shocked.
We have Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Brave new World and THX all in one huge pot controlled by a few in Brussels that in turn are controlled by lobbyists.
I'm starting to think that Brexit is a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please.
They will make this system, and they will make it optional.
For a while.
Then to 'streamline' and 'improve efficiency' it will be harder and harder to do anything online from the EU without using that system.
Eight, ten years down the line it WILL be mandatory because no ISPs will be left that don't require it to let you connect - but from a LEGAL standpoint it is still 'optional'.
Re: (Score:3)
You are mistaken and spreading FUD.
The EU is known for its (to some excessive amount of) deliberation and almost all of the crazy or stupid stuff dies in the process (TTIP potentially being a problematic counterexample and the misguided neoliberal approach to fiscal policies another).
People love shitting all over the EU, but in general it has the most rational and thought-through policies on this planet, due to the amount of deliberation and processes involved and in spite of chauvinism and selfish behaviou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The curvature of bananas was part of a long list of quality demands in which I can imagine it to have been thought innocuous at the time:
"The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste."
The demands concerning size and shape
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then explain how the regulations regarding curving of cucumbers ended into a legislation in the EU
The country which pushed it through (the UK, so it's deeply ironic that the Brexiters keep bringing it up) already had various regulations governing the appearance of Class I, Class II and Class III vegetables. So did the rest of the EU, but as always everyone had different regulations.
The so-called silly regulations simply made them the same Europe wide, so what was a class I banana in England could be sold as a Class I one in Germany.
So tell me, what's worse, having 1 rule about the curvature of bannnannanaas or having 28 different and incompatible rules across 28 countries that trade a lot?
Re: (Score:2)
Frogs should be boiled slowly. Give them time to get used to the water temperature before you increase the heat.
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (Score:4, Funny)
Orwell was an optimist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah exploring ideas is really horrible. Meanwhile, have you explored the idea (gasp) that leaving the EU would have financial consequences for the UK?
Derp. Yeah, since it's not YOUR wallet, it's such a simple matter of principle from an ocean away...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Informative)
So let's see, where does the UK make most of it's trade? Exactly: With other EU countries.
Now after the Brexit, the UK would have to negotiate new trade deals with the EU. This will take years, as the EU will have no reasson to give the UK any preferential deals.
The UK could go the route Norway has taken, but that would mean aggreeing to rules that the EU has set, without any chance to influence the making of said rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think Germany is going to give up a 200 billion euro chunk of its economy just so Brussels can score a meaningless point? Do you think the Netherlands is going to give up 80 billion euro for that reason? And if those two countries happily continu trading with the UK, what do you suppose Brussels will do?
1. Scream?
2. Send the glorious EU army?
3. Kick Germany and the Netherlands out?
Please. If anything happens, it will only hasten the demise of the EU.
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with this argument often parroted by Brexiters is that it assumes that the only factors at play are trade between Britain and the rest of the EU as single entities in isolation.
But the problem is more complex than that, the danger for the EU is that if Britain leaves and gets a sweatheart deal, that other countries will question why they're even in the EU if they can get better deals with the EU outside. This will mean other nations will quit, it means red tape between nations in the EU will increase, and it means that any benefit to retaining trade with the UK on terms favourable to the UK is lost.
Yes, it will hurt Germany and France to see decreased trade with the UK, but it'll hurt them even more if other nations leave the EU and become more expensive to trade with. This isn't a risk Germany and France are willing to take, so they'll accept the blow on decreased trade with the UK to make sure that the rest of the EU is kept together such that trade there remains efficient and strong.
For France and Germany the calculation isn't simply a yes/no question of "Do we want to retain trade with the UK at current levels?", it's "What's worse, losing some trade with the UK, or dealing with the risk and associated costs of potential collapse of the EU in general?". I think it's pretty obvious what they're going to choose, the loss of trade with us is small fry compared to widespread departures from the EU and the costly disentanglements that would entail. Sacrificing trade with us to punish us is a price well worth paying to them if the alternative is to see massive damage to the EU and the greater costs to them that that would result in.
Anyone simplifying it as simply cutting their nose off to spite their face, and that they wouldn't do that because they want the income from UK trade is both economically and politically illiterate because the alternative has an even greater cost to them. They'll make sure Brexit hurts not simply to spite the UK, but to protect themselves - they're always going to put their interests before the UK's if the UK decides to shun them. It's nonsensical to believe they'd do the UK a favour at massive risk to their own wellbeing.
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Informative)
Part of being in the EU means that you can't do individual trade deals with other countries any more. The EU negotiates on your behalf, and all members get the same deal. This is one of the point of contention with the Leave campaign, they think we could negotiate good deals with countries like China if we were allowed to.
Of course, the reason the EU doesn't negotiate a free trade deal with China is because it doesn't want to start a race to the bottom. It doesn't want to be competing freely with Chinese wages. It doesn't want to be competing directly with Chinese environmental standards and product safety levels. The Leave campaign is mostly rich people who would stand to gain a lot by driving down UK wages and conditions in the name of "making us more competitive". They have been quite clear that this is their goal, it's repeated often in debates and in propaganda.
Being part of the EU means you become part of a larger democracy. So for example sometimes we get out-voted on rule changes that we don't like, although about 90% of the time we get our way. That's how EU politics work, compromise until the solution is acceptable to the vast majority. Member states also have a veto over some major changes, like letting new countries join or the transfer of additional powers.
The EU can pass directives, which member states then have to translate into their own laws. The EU monitors states for compliance. The main goal here is to create a level playing field where anyone can export to any other EU state with minimal effort and red tape, because the rules are the same everywhere.
Being part of the EU requires accepting certain principals. You have to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was largely written by the UK but which the UK now blames for stuff like not being able to send people overseas for torture or unfair imprisonment. The other big principal is freedom of movement, for goods, services, currency and people.
The free movement of people causes the most concern, as it means that e.g. UK citizens can go and work anywhere in the EU with minimal hassle and without a visa, and that Polish people can come to the UK to do the same. This has resulted in, for example, over 750,000 British people going to live in Spain (nice weather, low cost of living, and they can use Spanish healthcare facilities on the same terms as Spanish people). However, most economists see freedom of movement as a positive thing, with real economic gains.
Hope that answers your questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exploring ideas is really horrible. Meanwhile, have you explored the idea (gasp) that leaving the EU would have financial consequences for the UK? Derp. Yeah, since it's not YOUR wallet, it's such a simple matter of principle from an ocean away...
You cannot put a price on liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brexit (Score:4, Insightful)
THEY ARE EXPLORING THE IDEA.
It is still disturbing that they considered mandatory online IDs to be an idea worth exploring. The Wannsee Conference was also just some European leaders exploring ideas.
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)
THEY ARE EXPLORING THE IDEA.
It is still disturbing that they considered mandatory online IDs to be an idea worth exploring. The Wannsee Conference was also just some European leaders exploring ideas.
Actually, the disturbing part is to try to understand how the article on slashdot speaks of "mandatory online ID" when the initial paragraph in the EU commission pdf is:
In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own.
The document also contains some stuff like
in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves
Someone somewhere in the path between slashdot and the EU commission must have some reading comprehension problems. Or maybe it's misrepresented on purpose.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone somewhere in the path between slashdot and the EU commission must have some reading comprehension problems. Or maybe it's misrepresented on purpose.
Or maybe we have seen how the worst government excesses are always presented like this, and are naturally mistrusting about anything that whiffs of destroying a vital part of our freedom.
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." (Juncker)
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,” (Juncker)
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,” (Juncker)
"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates" (Juncker)
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie." (Juncker)
Are you trying to say you trust this guy?
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly am I going to "choose" if that whole shit catches on and companies only allow login with that ID card because they in turn are going to get a law forcing them to correctly identify me and them deciding that it's easier for them to pass the buck back on?
Won't happen? You haven't seen many pages yet that only allow you to sign in using your Facebook account, have you? And here we're a far cry from any government mandating it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's kinda funny, because if brexit happens, I'm planning to open a bank account there. It will be a nearby, well-governed, safe place under a law system I at least vaguely understand, yet it's outside of the EU. Sounds like a great place to store my money.
Re: Brexit (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong on both accounts. If UK wants to keep access to the EU market, they still will have to pay into the EU budget and follow the EU laws and regulations,but without the benefit of being able to vote, just like Norway and Switzerland. This is why i am in favour with Brexit - so the brits will finally lose their special privileges and can't introduce more stupid laws tailored for their financial industry protection.
Re: (Score:2)
You really wouldn't escape it since these stupid laws the EU craps out extend beyond their borders. Look at Google.Com and that moronic "Right to be Forgotten" and how they want that ruling to apply to US servers.
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Insightful)
This issue is completely unrelated to Brexit for better or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brexit (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant section is (with my emphasis):
As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
This was even quoted in the Softpedia article, although somehow spun to mean the proposal was about "forcing EU citizens to use their real identities" rather than (as the article said) about giving them choice. The only mandating being proposed here is on the online platforms themselves.
As to the part about online reviews, although following on from the above, seems to be a separate issue being discussed.
Greater transparency is also needed for users to understand how the information presented to them is filtered, shaped or personalised, especially when this information forms the basis of purchasing decisions or influences their participation in civic or democratic life. If consumers are properly informed of the nature of the products that they view or consume online, this assists the efficient functioning of markets and consumer welfare.
Online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews, where loss of trust can undermine the business model of the platform itself, but also lead to a wider loss of trust, as expressed in many responses to the public consultation.
Both the above quotes are from a section subtitles "Fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness - Informing and empowering citizens and consumers".
As to what the commission proposes, it states (with emphasis from document):
In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation 39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own.
In the context of the continued dialogue with all stakeholders, the Commission encourages industry to step up voluntary efforts, which the Commission will undertake to assist in framing, to prevent trust-diminishing practices, in particular — but not limited — to tackle fake or misleading online reviews.
The problem here is not the EU communication or proposal, it is the reporting spin being given to it, as in the Softpedia article.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Briton and I'll be voting to remain in the EU. Brexit is for masochists. Even Nigel Farage admited in the ITV debate with David Cameron the other day that the UK economy will shrink if we leave the EU, and frankly I'd rather not see the governement tax take shrinking resulting in more cuts, more tax rises and more money wasted servicing the national debt (currently about equal to the defence budget).
As for this story... it just sounds like typical anti-EU BS. As if the UK would agree to something l
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Briton and I'll be voting to remain in the EU. Brexit is for masochists. Even Nigel Farage admited in the ITV debate with David Cameron the other day that the UK economy will shrink if we leave the EU.
Just a few generations ago, the British gave their very lives for the freedom of this entire continent. Sad to see how they now wouldn't even want to lose a few lousy euros for their own liberty...
Re: (Score:2)
> "consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves"
This basically means that "it would be nice if online platforms accepted government eIDs for logging in", it does NOT mean "all citizens must comply and use government eIDs for using the Internet or online services". What they are talking about is mandating that online platforms such as facebook, google, amazon etc accepts eIDs as credentials. This is in an exploratory phase, and is likely that
GCHQ (Score:2)
If you are so concerned regarding being spied upon, you should actually look at your own government and what it's doing through its GCHQ agency. This EU proposal is peanuts compared to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there have been a lot of lobbying organizations working their ass off to ensure everyone in Britain thinks that a Brexit would cost Britain millions and billions of pounds. And we're not talking about something nobody takes serious, if you hear the WTO tell them that "certain deals will have to be renegotiated" you know that some rather powerful organizations don't like the idea of Britain simply leaving the one-stop bribery hub.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when they actually want to implement something. This could be just a diversion while they erode rights in some other area :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it sure as shit ain't the jews. When has it ever been verboten to criticize them?
So now I become a JEW (Score:3, Funny)
Oh boy, now I'm supposed to be a JEW
If I am a JEW then there will be over 1 Billion JEWS in China as well as more than 300 million other JEWS living inside and outside the many "JEWTOWNS" all over the world
With the sudden increase of 1.3 ~ 1.5 new JEWS I'm sure those running Israel will be happy like a clam
One important caveat: Most of the new JEWS can't pronounce "Fried Rice" correctly but some of them do make the most delicious dimsum this JEW loves so much!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, the NZ government is quietly pushing its RealMe system as exactly that; trying to get every site to use it. They're encouraging third party sites to use it Except they go FURTHER than what you're suggesting - it is a criminal offense to ever have more than one log in into this system. You cannot get a replacement, full stop. The idea is this system is then used to authorise replacement passports, drivers licenses, bank accounts etc.. but yeah.
But the reality is my identity is protected more by hav
Re: (Score:3)
Strange. There are currently many more countries asking to join the EU than those considering leaving (one).
And the one considering leaving has always had certain opt-outs (currency, open borders, etc.), and has negotiated all kinds of exceptions because it's an oddball in the way it produces money and imports goods, but a powerful oddball, and otherwise its membership would be unfair to it but the EU still want to keep it in.
And even in that one country... the polls are currently saying 50% of people are