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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’m sorry, but all this fear-mongering about

    This is just another example of US big tech companies trying to control all decisions about security to favor their own commercial interests

    when referring to a non-profit is not really convincing. Especially considering that the open letter calling the proposed changes harmful has been signed by experts and organisations from all over Europe.

    I’m not sure what commercial benefits they think Mozilla will get from not being forced to allow untrustworthy certificates, but it’s clear that the certificate-minting orgs behind the ESD have a lot to gain if they would be.

    (It’s unclear to me why you referred to ESD, an industry lobbying group, as a “trilogue” BWT? In an EU context, that usually refers to the European Parliament, Commission and Council.)

    • Riddick3001OP
      link
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        But Mozilla Corporation which is fully owned by Mozilla foundation is a multimillion dollar industry

        Yes, but that money is not going into shareholders’ pockets. It can be used by the Foundation to support its mission.

        Also, its seems Google is its primary sponsor:

        Google is the primary customer. It pays Mozilla, and in return, Mozilla sends people to Google Search.

        It also doesn’t really matter, since you don’t need that argument: Google is already a browser vendor as well. And the same question holds: what commercial benefit do they stand to gain, and how? I also still haven’t seen an answer to that question about Mozilla.

        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

        Are you saying that Mozilla lied, and that those European experts and organisations did not actually sign that letter? Because it’s easy to just search for their name + eidas and verify their actual stance. For example, I just did that for EDRi, whose stance is here:

        In the full paper we also explain how the proposal could break web security by forcing government access to the security systems of web browsers, which would have devastating consequences.

        (That is not a Mozilla link, btw. Mozilla’s website is just an easy place to link to since it has rallied people around the cause and aggregated their voices to a single place, but it refers to a very diverse group of actors, many of whom have no financial benefit to gain. Whereas the lobbying group you’re linking to is just representing a group of CAs.)