Note: Since for more than a year I’ve been reading about the downsides of the eIDAS legislation. Their sources where mostly DOT.com US entities. The same stuff happened when the EU implemented the new GDPR and now similar things happen with the. upcoming eIDAS 2.0 and the the upcoming AI law. Here I outline the EU position to clarify the situation. This isn’t news, but Since the anti e-IEDAS campaign keeps pushing the agenda it’s still relevant imo.

"The discussion on the eIDAS Regulation has entered its most important phase in the European Parliament and Council. Mozilla has recently launched a campaign in the form of a website aimed at political decision-makers, but also the general public.

“As with the Google response, you are taking a very US-centric approach to lobbying that is only going to reduce the chance of influencing the outcome. EU politics are not the same as US politics.”

Here( link ESD Experts support decision trilogue; answer to mozilla the overview fact sheet.

Edit 1 & 2: Sorry, no ill intent. It seems something went wrong while shortening & copying this link title:" ESD Experts Support Trilogue Compromise and Emphasize Necessity for Highest Security of the Internet

ESD is a European lobby group consisting of the CEOs of Europe’s leading trust service providers.

  • kbal
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    EU trilogue answer to mozilla

    That link is not to an EU trilogue as I gather the term is normally used. It is to some kind of lobbyist group representing industry participants who presumably stand to profit in some way from the legislation as proposed. It is full of disingenuous nonsense such as “Mozilla already accepts QWACS — so how can Article 45.2 be a problem for Mozilla?” It completely ignores the substance of Mozilla’s complaint.

    There is no need for problematic legislation interfering with everyone’s web browsers in order to get them to accept these cert authorities: The makers of web browsers will absolutely be happy to do so, as long as they are not used for anything nefarious. If this is the best that “European Signature Dialog” can come up with, all it demonstrates is that there is absolutely no reason not to make the changes that Mozilla and others call for.

    • Riddick3001OP
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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?

        • Riddick3001OP
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          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.

          • kbal
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Nothing much is new since then so far as I know. Here’s more recent coverage from the EFF.

            Edit: Further web browsing turns up the latest open letter which has signatures from “552 scientists and researchers from 42 countries, as well as numerous NGOs.”