Thanks Gordon, What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you reference is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it is important to decide who to trust, while one should be told to trust whatever eID Brussels decides on.
Thats a contradiction in terms. There are too many "trust" issues where Brussels think the path forward is to tell people what to trust. Incident reporting, how CERTs are managed and get their information and eID. Just to mention a few. Thats not how trust is built up. And specifically not how trust is moved from trust between individuals to trust between organizations. Patrik On 30 Apr 2016, at 23:00, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous RIPE > meeting. > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process > > A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been “leaked”. > > http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.pdf > > See in particular the top of page 12. > > I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that this > kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, of > those really interested, before proceeding. > > So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather than > the reactions of organisations, may be useful. > > Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has taken a > formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally obliged > to defend it. > > This item from The Register - > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ - > would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. > > Regards, > > Gordon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
