• Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    A quick google finds me a government website explaining eidas and what it’s for. By that, I know it’s not behind closed doors or undisclosed, nor requiring compromised certificates.

    With a quick google, you might find the same. The eu’s website, are a reliable source for information about the EU I think

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        also, last-chance-for appears to be from mozilla and worried about article 45. I can recommend reading it for yourself. If there is one thing I learned in recent years its that orgs funded 95% by google might not be the most trustworthy when talking about internet regulations. So I suggest to not take mozilla by their word, cuz without google funding they’re dead

        here is the legal text if you’d like to read

        https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG

        • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you really don’t trust Mozilla I recommend you to directly check out this open letter (which is signed by more than 300 experts).

          Edit: fixed link, changed language

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Looks like I might have had an old version of the doc. Clicking the link I read this morning I find a 404. After finding it again, I do find a doc where recognize what they’re concerned about

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        reading further, (summarising) the change is to no longer exclusively trust parties like Google to rule who is and isn’t considered trusted online and instead delegates this to EU member states. This does not affect the use of encryption, or a safe dns provider. No worries about your data being recorded.

        However, it does stop large organizations like google and Mozilla from abusing their position of authority to harm competitors availability and trust online

        • Vincent@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It sounds like you made up your mind in advance to support this. Mozilla (and I believe Google too) have a public and rigorous process to determine which certificates to include in their browser, and, importantly, which not too. This new regulation would enable governments to circumvent that process and force browsers to include their certificates, even if those are used to spy on citizens, or are insecure - like the government of Kazakhstan tried to do before. All this using a process without checks and balances.

          Also note that parties like Google aren’t trusted “exclusively” - you can always switch browsers if you don’t trust them. That will no longer be possible with this regulation.

    • Vincent@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      By that, I know it’s not behind closed doors or undisclosed, nor requiring compromised certificates.

      I don’t know how you reached that second conclusion from the fact that there’s a government website, but as https://last-chance-for-eidas.org/ mentions, it was hidden in plain sight, in that eIDAS wasn’t hidden, but the specific consequences were:

      Although the deal itself was publicly announced in late June, the announcement doesn’t even mention website certificates, let alone these new provisions. This has made it extremely difficult for civil society, academics and the general public to scrutinize or even be aware of the laws their representatives have signed off on in private meetings.