I don’t know what motivates your crusade against them.

I am not. I just wonder why, mozilla seems to be the major source of most publications against the eIDAS.

I thought my intro was fairly nuanced and contextual. I was looking for other and new viewpoints towards the eIDAS discussion, which are not using or quoting mozilla and art 45. Or sources with a different opinion or take on the matter.

Mozilla is not some sinister conspiracy.

Never said it was. I like privacy that’s why I’m concerned and interested.

But the ESD experts did say it was misinformation, and like they claim mozilla is being payed by Google according to wiki and pc magazine

But apperantly you trust mozilla more though they just follow a business model. So maybe its all about trust. I will remain critical and see how it develops.

" Lawmakers in Europe are expected to adopt digital identity rules that civil society groups say will make the internet less secure and open up citizens to online surveillance."

Also the Register literally quotes mozilla " As Firefox maker Mozilla put it:

This enables the government of any EU member state to issue website certificates for interception and surveillance which can be used against every EU citizen, even those not resident in or connected to the issuing member state. There is no independent check or balance on the decisions made by member states with respect to the keys they authorize and the use they put them to."

Why are you using US sites for EU legislation? Here the current state of affairs. Its an ongoing process.

Revision of the eIDAS Regulation – European Digital Identity (EUid)*

when referring to a non-profit is not really convincing

But Mozilla Corporation which is fully owned by Mozilla foundation is a multimillion dollar industry ( wiki info. So there is that.

There are many non-profit foundations, doesn’t mean their sponsors don’t have an opinion or agenda.

Also, its seems Google is its primary sponsor: " Most of the revenue of Mozilla Corporation comes from Google (81% in 2022 in exchange of making it the default search engine in Firefox.

Also your post orginated from Mozilla. org. People keep sending mozilla links in their remarks to prove their point; but it is actually validating my concern more and more, and this same observation on the web, was also the reason for my post.

It’s unclear to me why you referred to ESD, an industry lobbying group, as a “trilogue” BWT

Very valid point, tnx. I screwed up while copy pasting and shortening titles. No ill intent. I edited the title, again, hopefully it’s better now. Not my best day apperantly.

Actually, it seems that eIDAS 2.0 won’t do that for webbrowsers, as I recently learned from EU comments on that issue.

But you prefer that a commercial US company issues them likeDigiCert ?

Tnx, but I was hoping for a new take. Unfortunately it’s an open letter signed byUS companies and institutions, like ICANN and the Internet Architecture Board. Also the letter adresses similar concerns about the same art 45 as Mozilla

It does somewhat validate my ealier point that it seems that the issue is also about the loss of digital power from US companies and institutions.

I just saw my typo and I edited the name from EU ESD to European ESD.

I was looking for more context and information on the matter. Mozilla is a multimillion dollar US company and lobbyist too.

The ESD trilogue is an ( alternate) take on the mozilla concern, and one of the few I could find that isn’t from mozilla origin.

Further on, I read mozillas position reflected in your remarks . They have been posted many times aleady on several communities. But, have you found any other new take or source on the ongoing e-iDAS 2.0 issues?

Context and FYI, official eIDAS site

The eIDAS Regulation:

• ensures that people and businesses can use their own national electronic identification schemes (eIDs) to access public services available online in other EU countries;
• creates a European internal market for trust services by ensuring that they will work across borders and have the same legal status as their traditional paper based equivalents.

There is and was also critique see this post and some reactions there. Especially, check the open letters ( eg. open letter ) from privacy watchdogs.

According to the EP legislative train digital age:

"The regulation also clarifies the scope of number of other notions such as the qualified website authentication certificates (used to verify the identity of persons or legal entities behind a website). This identity data has to be displayed in a user-friendly manner. In case of substantiated security concerns, web browsers are allowed to take precautionary measures related to these certificates

The text still needs to be formally adopted by the Parliament and the Council before it can be published in the EU’s Official Journal and enter into force. "

" Techradar " is not the best source for legislative journalism, and one could question their credibility about product reviews. Check trustpilot for example; 1 /5 rating.

Added: Afaik, EU institutions are developing a new legislation for a Euroepean digital future containing biometrics, digital identity and Internet safeguards. The GDPR is a basis for this legislation, so privacy safeguards shouldn’t be an issue. The existing discussion is about the interpretation/ backdoor abuse of the issuing and handling of (root)certificates.of websites, described in art 45.

Now these certificates are done by businesses and as per 2023 eIDAS EU proposal they should be done by EU and or memberstates. This latter regulation drew the concern of privacy watchdogs. According to the EU itself and the actors involved, it’s rather something more about finding the correct legislative terms, then about the intention to enabling " mass surveillance ". At this moment the new law hasn’t been adopted, as they are still in full discussion mode about the correct version. Also I’m happy about the privacy watchdogs which help contribute to a better legislation . It’s an ongoing discussion and (democratic) process.

here the new open letter with critique as per nov 2023 towards eIDAS 2.0

another letter per dec 2023 from the University KU Leuven.

As I see it, this column is about the similarities and differences of crisses in the past and now. By highlighting what went wrong and what went right, we should be able to have a better focus on how to deal (or how not to deal) with current crises. In the past, inequality, famine economic exploitation, social malaise, crop failures, were a contributing factor. So though 2024 and 1848 are not the same; our current crisis shares similar trends: inequality, dwindling resources, climate change, resurgence of nationalism and war.

The elite in the past and some of them now, want to maintain their control and the status quo, by providing a ( false) narrative, whilst distracting us from finding a solution. An easy fix to war migration & climate problem doesn’t exist, but we could start addressing those issues that could be tackled, like the growing inequality.

This column carries also a warning. If we let our selves get distracted, the elite will simply create a “new horizon”, a false promise, albeit globalisation or a new economic deal, etc But their tomorrow would be one without tackling and changing what needed to be tackled yesterday.

Added: maybe it’s important to highlight another similarity, “misinformation”. Those narratives in the past which distracted us, are also distracting us now via the mis- and disinformation campaigns on social media, and by many Political actors and autocrats.

deleted by creator

Both indoor and outdoor air pollution with a PM above 10 micro meter, causes the early death of 7 M worldwide on a yearly basis. Plus there is severe illness to millions more according to worlddata.

refinery parts

And adding to your argument; I believe most refinaries were maintened by Western expertise and replacements were supplied by Western firms, but both aren’t happening anymore (like with the airplanes)

So yeah, I agree, these drones are doing damage for sure.

Tnx, via mozilla no problem though. But here alt link

Good news for European Spacecowboys.

TLDR; surprise surprise, analysts predict that Orban wants something out of it.

Funny maps

La folie, c’est drole

I’m going to create it anyway,

Allright, didn’t catch that bit. So then no need for a poll like you said. I thought you were discussing this option. So keep us posted indeed.

Seems @Alberto180 doesn’t mind to have lighter content posting here. I think that the question is whether people would like it to be intertwined, or keep like a focus for political discussion here… Also don’t know how that works a critical minimum of users for a Cty to take off, but maybe you can have them as part of the" same whole" too;like part of Europe.de and viceversa…

@Blaze I think a separate one called Yurup for memes/ Yt and occasional bla bla, would be nice.

ADD: we could have a a poll? proposal:

1. keep it here
2. separate
3. if separate (but maybe together) is an option what name?