Talk:EIDAS/Archive 1

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.cryptomathic.com/news-events/blog/understanding-the-major-terms-around-digital-signatures. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, some of the references in the eIDAS article where removed by an anonymous user with the justification that they were "SPAM". I strongly support the movement of keeping Wikipedia free of spam. However I had to undo the activity as it was not justified. Let me defend the notability of the authors quoted in the following. The first reference deleted as spam was by Jens Bender from Fraunhofer Institute, one of Germany's most renowned research institutes. The source was published on www.Bund.de, which is the public portal of Germany's Federal Administration. The source was critically evaluating opportunities and risks and helped to bring the article away from wiktionary kind of explanation towards an evaluating essay. Also Ashiq J.A. is known to many security experts. His tweets on #infosec have more than 800 followers (https://twitter.com/AshiqJA). Mr Ashiq is security evangelist within the U.A.E government and brought a valuable outside perspective. Then there were quotes by Mrs Dawn Turner. I like her posts and regularly quote her as she creates the bigger picture, sets into context and explains. Especially when talking about the intersection of information security and law, this helps a lot. Additional sources will help to enhance. But please avoid destructive steps that would harm the credibility of the article. Discussions in the talk section would be the most fruitful. I like those discussions like in the talk of the Beatles entry. They help sharpening and improving the article. And please do not work anonymously. ScienceGuard (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Increasingly I follow discussions on the security of eIDAS. I.e. the risk that centralized trust-service-providers could be tempted to breach data security laws and misuse data as they have an overall insight into transactions, participating agents (nodes) their relationships (edges). Governments (or Espionage agencies and hackers) would get easy access to a network of relationships which can be maliciously exploited. I know that ETSI is continuously working on additional standards helping to secure the data and to better specify eIDAS. But I did not find any notable source so far that allows to discuss this in the article. Please contribute! ScienceGuard (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You were prescient. Seven years later, the EU is expanding the law to enable exactly that. There weren't reliable sources then, but there certainly are a lot clamoring about it now. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Should the 1st and 2nd versions of the law be separate articles or single ones? DenverCoder9 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends on finding good sources to see how if they described eIDAS2 being significantly different from eEIDAS1. The MITM attack makes it sound like eIDAS2 is completely different in the sense of being a massive privacy violation, while eIDAS1 enabled privacy protection by allowing people to avoid the risk of their handwritten signatures propagating to identity thives. In any case, the material is currently here, so building it up properly here based on good WP:RS and then proposing a WP:SPLIT later can't hurt. Boud (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)