EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Commission launches e-identity initiative

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 04 June 2012

The European Commission will publish today (4 June) a proposal to encourage the take up of e-signatures and e-identities across Europe, gathering praise from companies but raising a controversial debate around the protection of privacy and the security of personal data.

A new draft regulation will update the existing e-Signatures Directive, extending its scope to include new services such as e-stamping or e-seals which are meant to guarantee the origin and the integrity of an electronic document.

The use of electronic identities across EU member states is set to be boosted by the initiative as the stated objective of the Commission is to maximise the cross-border potential of electronic identities held by EU citizens and companies.

If the proposed regulation is approved by lawmakers in the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, citizens’ e-identities will be automatically recognised in other EU member countries without need of extra paper work.

"The proposed Regulation will ensure mutual acceptance of electronic identification schemes (eIDs), e-Signatures and related online trust services," said Ryan Heath, spokesperson for Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

"The sorts of groups it will help include citizens moving or marrying abroad, students, small businesses, medical patients," Heath said.

"But it will not, for example, oblige EU member states to introduce national identity cards, nor would it introduce a European ID system or force individuals to obtain an ID card or passport," Heath said in response to privacy campaigners.

For companies operating across the EU's internal borders, the advantage would be to access tenders in other countries in a shorter time and with less red tape.

National authorities would be obliged to recognise electronic identities certified in other member states, shortening identification procedures for foreign citizens or businesses.

An EU project, called Stork, has already identified a common platform where the 17 member states which have participated to the initiative, can mutually recognise e-IDs.

No obligation to introduce national IDs

To allay critics coming from privacy protection groups, the Commission underlines that the new legislation would not oblige member states that do not have electronic IDs to introduce them. Many member states at the moment have no e-IDs, and some like Britain have no IDs at all.

Among the possible beneficiaries of the new rules are “students who could register for a foreign university online, rather than having to travel abroad to complete the paper work in person” or “patients needing medical assistance abroad who could securely check or authorise a doctor to access their online medical records,” the Commission says.

Brussels also ensures that “the proposals are designed to avoid the centralisation of information”. No new database will be created. “There is no aggregation of information, beyond the aggregation that already takes place in national systems,” according to a Commission document.

Moreover, the security of the electronic use of personal data in other countries will be protected with state-of-the-art technology and procedures, the Commission insists. Under the proposal, unnecessary data will not be revealed, it says.

“If a teenager wanted secure access to a chat room for 14-18 year olds, or gamblers needed to prove they were of legal age, the website should only check information about their age from the e-ID card. Other details such as nationality and address would not need to be revealed,” stresses the Commission paper to be published today.

The other side of the coin

The proposed legislation has been drafted with care to meet concerns of civil rights groups and normal citizens which feel threatened by a perceived invasion of their private life by public authorities.

Reactions to a EurActiv story, which unveiled details of the Commission proposal two weeks ago, provide a snapshot of the most common worries expressed by citizens. "I will not accept that I need to have a card to produce to tell me and every one else who I am and where I come from," said Anne Palmer, a EurActiv reader. "We fought to be free and we will again fight to be free," she said in response to another reader who wondered why British people were so vehemently opposed to ID cards.

Against such an emotional background, the Commission underlines that harmonisation of e-identities is not required by the proposed new European rules.

However, the eventual target is obviously to favour an increased take up of electronic identities across borders. And it is always better and more practical to have them harmonised across the EU.

Member states that refuse to use e-IDs will be cut off from the advantages of easier identification across borders. An incentive will be established for member states to equip themselves with e-IDs. Best practices will be exchanged and followed, leading to de facto harmonisation.

This outcome is not bad news as it would make the life of many citizens easier, the Commission argues. But it may create controversy in nations where concerns about privacy are higher, notably in the United Kingdom where citizens have long opposed the introduction of real world identity cards.

Data protection

Security is also a matter of concern. Data breaches are on the rise as more activities move online.

Current data protection systems are not always appropriate to face increasingly sophisticated techniques to steal data and identities in the electronic world. Without seriously beefing up security requirements for the public and private sector, eIDs could also provide new opportunities for internet fraudsters and criminals organisations to thrive on.

The fact is that increasing security also bears considerable economic and reputational costs. And private companies and governments have every interest in protecting themselves from such risk.

Positions: 

The EU Commissioner in charge of ICT, Neelie Kroes, said: “People and businesses should be able to transact within a borderless digital single market, that is the value of internet. Legal certainty and trust is also essential, so a more comprehensive e-Signatures and e-Identification Regulation is needed. This proposal will mean you can make the most of your e-ID, if you have one. With mutual recognition of national e-IDs and common standards for trust services and e-Signatures, we can prevent a national carve-up of the internet and online public services and make life easier for millions of businesses and even more citizens.”

Replying to a public consultation earlier launched by the European Commission on e-Identities, the French Pirate Party commented: “We would like to underline the fact that, while the help of the Europe is not imperative to such systems, the risks for rights like privacy and freedoms like freedom of expression makes it important to legislate and prevent any abuse.”

The Party called for avoiding the centralisation of data storage and to allow citizens to disclose the minimum of personal informal. Both requests seem to have been taken on board by the Commission proposal.

ChamberSign, the association of Chambers of commerce delivering e-Signature related services advised to “adopt a coordinate approach for the delivery of certificate to legal person, to the concept of secure signature creation devices, to the quality of mobile created esignature, to the security requirements for signature algorithm; and to simplify the use of e-Signatures by end users by the set up of a European central validation service, a single definition of e-Signatures, improved integration of e-signing functionalities in software and hardware.”

“We are glad that the Commission wants to take initiative in this area. SMEs in Europe will benefit from a harmonised system for e-signature as it facilitates transactions, especially across the border. The main conditions for e-signature to be a success for SMEs are to be simple and not costly. Also, e-signature must remain a free choice for companies that want to use it. If it becomes an obligation, then it will be just a new burden for our economy,” Sebastiano Toffaletti, secretary general of PIN-SME, the main association of SMEs active in the sector of information and communications technologies.

Francesco Guarascio

COMMENTS

  • I predict more tedious and ill informed comments on the subject. However, this is partly a symptom of the detachment EU citizens feel from the EU in general and the way in which policy/legislation is both formulated and decided. One only needs to look at the passage of the energy efficiency directive - posturing by member states and a powerless (or relatively so) EP - to see what I mean.

    The case in favour of e-identities has been mostly made in a technocratic fashion. Hence the predictably negative reaction. It is no good talking in general terms (allows better cross border identification) - if there is an argument to be made then it needs to be made in a specific and concrete way.

    apre moi le deluge.

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2012
  • @Mike Parr:
    I think you mean 'Après moi, le déluge' but never mind.

    By the way, Mike, after your nonsense reply on European aviation CO2 taxes, there is a comment waiting for your reply here:
    http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/europe-airline-ceos-blast-crazy-news-512975

    Now back to this story...

    The EU is failing, the Euro is failing, and EU politicians, as almost everywhere, are out of touch with their electorate, so of course they are unable to sell e-identity in terms that actually mean something useful to their citizens.

    Also, as Neelie Kroes was a recent visitor to Bilderberg 2012 in Chantilly, Virginia, USA, you can be sure that e-identity was one of the topics of discussion there.

    The internet and freedom of expression is a thorn in the side of the EU and other power bases, as people can easily check what others think about particular issues, and as many comments are negative, especially at the moment, they would love to quash this - silence people if you will.

    e-identities would help in this, by making it easier to track dissenters and thus help remove anonymity.

    So, once again, it's up to the people to be aware of these things and decide for themselves if they wish more tracking and data collection of their online activities and more.
    Research terms, to help people decide if the potential for negative usage by authorities is warranted: nazis data collection IBM

    For those who would like to see the list of Bilderberg attendees, check the participant list here:
    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

    Watch how these corrupt globalist elites grimace, or even hide their faces when photographed as their limo pulls into the hosting hotel grounds:
    http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg2012/

    Mike, is this you?:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Parr

    By :
    J
    - Posted on :
    04/06/2012
  • Part of the democratic process is public criticism and having the courage to attached ones real name to ones views (regardless of their popularity). Those that want to know who I am need only look at the FT archives and the 16 or so letters I have had published in that "august organ".

    In the case of "J" clearly the man (or woman) has something to hide if he/she/it only identifies itself by a letter. Pathetic. Still that just about sums up such people - shouting as they do from the sidelines.

    Don't like what's going on - join a political party - hell form one if you cannot find one you like.

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2012
  • @Mike Parr:

    > Part of the democratic process is public criticism and having the courage to attached ones real name to ones views (regardless of their popularity).

    Well, if you think it wise to use one's own name on a public political website, you are entitled to your own opinion, of course.
    But please don't assume that everyone shares, or should share, your opinion.

    A quick look at a selection of public website comments sections, though, would seem to confirm that your view is certainly in the minority.
    For example, here's a typical Guardian Environment article comments section:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jun/02/jarvis-cocker-arctic-oil-environment?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

    Could you tell me the proportion of commenters there using their real name?
    It's an extremely small minority, for good reason.

    So, in political terms, you go against the consensus view in this choice of using your own name.
    Anyway, that's your choice, and this is mine. Let's agree to disagree on this point, although it would appear that my choice of anonymity clearly irks you. Funny.

    Personally, I feel the name a commenter chooses to use is irrelevant, as surely the point the commenter makes is of far more importance than their 'handle', or name, if you like?

    > Those that want to know who I am need only look at the FT archives...

    This person:
    http://www.pwr.co.uk/contact.html

    "Custom Studies (IT & Climate Change)
    In the area of market studies, PWR only produces custom reports focused on European markets.
    Custom studies allow PWR to supply client with exactly what they want."

    LOL, I bet the European Commission get exactly what they want. :)

    http://www.macmillanpr.eu/en/index.php?

    "Macmillan Public Affairs is a specialist Brussels-based European public affairs company skilled in serving the communications requirements of business and governments in Central and Eastern Europe."

    So you make your money by telling European institutions to increase their use of renewable energy to combat the bogeyman of 'climate change'.
    Now I understand your need to rattle your drum on these pages, and rubbish those naughty, deluded 'sceptics' or do you prefer the term 'denier'?
    I suppose it makes cents, ooops sense, I mean.

    > ... and the 16 or so letters I have had published in that "august organ".

    http://www.google.com/search?q="august+organ"+"mike+parr"
    9 results

    Seems like you like to sound important. Perhaps it helps with the PRopaganda, ooops sorry, 'Public Relations' for Macmillan PR / PWR when peddling your wares?

    For the benefit of people here whose first language is not English:
    august [aw-guhst]
    adjective
    1. inspiring reverence or admiration; of supreme dignity or grandeur; majestic: an august performance of a religious drama.
    2. venerable; eminent: an august personage.

    > In the case of "J" clearly the man (or woman) has something to hide if he/she/it only identifies itself by a letter...

    You have lost your credibility completely now.

    > Pathetic.

    Are you trying to bring in the infamous use of ad-hominem attacks here?
    Tut tut, at your age you should know better that debates should be conducted on the basis of facts & opinions, and not through use of ad-hominem attacks.

    > Still that just about sums up such people - shouting as they do from the sidelines.

    What are you talking about? Please elaborate.
    Judging by your choice of words, you are clearly an angry, irked and rattled old man. Take it easy, anger is not good for the blood pressure.
    I understand that science is slowly but surely supplanting 'science' in the public's eye, and that is bad for your business, but please stay calm, and try to be objective.

    > Don't like what's going on - join a political party - hell form one if you cannot find one you like.

    You mean join a socialist or communist-based party to use 'science', politics (IPCC/Greenpeace/WWF/RS/UEA CRU/Mann/Jones variety) to attack science, facts and reason?

    No thanks, I prefer to use my intellect and critical-thinking capabilities to differentiate between facts and 'facts'.
    Good try though ;-)

    Finally Mike, let me again remind you that there is a comment that requires your counter-reply on European aviation CO2 taxes here:
    http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/europe-airline-ceos-blast-crazy-news-512975

    Normally, it would appear that you are quite opinionated, so I'm surprised that you don't feel a need to 'rebut' my comment at that URL.
    Or is this question a bit tricky? Using your words.

    Perhaps you will 'lose your courage' again, and not reply?

    By :
    J
    - Posted on :
    05/06/2012
Background: 

An electronic identity can be confirmed through certificates and e-signatures. In general terms, an electronic signature is any identification or signature in electronic form. This can range from a scanned signature to a PIN, in the most advanced options.

The e-signatures Directive states that an advanced electronic signature is an electronic signature “which uniquely links the signature to the signatory”. But so far, only certain digital signatures meet these requirements.

A digital signature consists of the use of a pair of two different but linked keys, a private and a public key. The private key (only known to the owner of the signature) is used to ‘sign’ a message. A recipient can verify the signature by using the sender’s public key (available to all). A certificate links the signature and the signatory and identifies the signatory. Certificates are issued by recognised certification authorities.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

InfoSociety News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

InfoSociety Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising