- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 23:03:23 +0200
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Cc: Erik Ros <mail@erikros.me>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, davidnicol@gmail.com
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_K3Om6cFZdfXo=swjh7yiyMXDpGR_uu9tecRV_gN94LeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Unless the eID requires a PIN or similar to be unlocked? That is the synergy I am referring to. The ability to have multiple applications on a single smart card chip. This was the intention for EMV at design time but has never really been exploited. Ultimately authorising a debit from my card is actually just using the card as a token to prove I am who i say I am and that I have permission to authorise a debit of an account in my name so it does seem logical that the same token (the card) is usable for both use cases. However, as I say it would be better (in my opinion) if this was done in a way that my national ID was a proxy to the process and worked on any card network. i.e. The card networks allow a national id verification as a form of auth instead of a PIN or similar . On 7 March 2015 at 14:15, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't figure out what the link is between the national ID and payments. > I do know that some Nordic countries have put an eID-application in the > same chip as the EMV-application. > I think this is a horrible idea because then every merchant can read your > ID as well. > > Anders > On 2015-03-07 12:15, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: > > Hi Erik, >> >> I think you meant to direct your comment to David? >> >> I would agree with you and add the following from my personal position: >> >> I live in a country where government tenders are almost always shrouded >> in some level of controversy. >> When an international commercial organisation is awarded (direct or >> indirect) control of a government institution it makes me very nervous. >> After the deal is done and the government ID running payment applications >> that are subject to some commercial entity's rules it's very hard to go >> back. >> >> I would agree with David that having a government ID that is also a >> payment instrument is an excellent synergy but would prefer that this was >> through some government/central bank controlled (or better independant and >> decentralized) proxy to the commercial payments providers. >> >> Adrian >> >> >> On 7 March 2015 at 00:15, Erik Ros <mail@erikros.me <mailto: >> mail@erikros.me>> wrote: >> >> Dear Adrian, >> >> you ask why not, the answer to that would have to be: >> >> because it is a cluttering of power. We want power to be divided as >> equally as possible over as many people as possible (IMO). >> >> I would like take my remark to a broader point. I think the >> specifications that are being created should valour de-centrality (the >> primary success factor of the internet). We shouldn't need the government, >> or a credit card company to make and economic exchange. >> >> We could do without this dependency. Perhaps we should have open >> source exchange providers?.. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Erik >> >> >> On 06-03-15 21:10, David Nicol wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie < >>> adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think this is a very encouraging trend: >>> http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=27066 >>> >>> >>> Why not? Aside from surveillance and monopoly concerns that are >>> actually there even without making a government-issued ID card a payment >>> instrument, it's excellent synergy. At least >>> its a bearer instrument and not a bar code tattoo! >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> There is a lot more low hanging fruit when you're tall. >>> >> >> -- >> ========================= >> -- Erik Ros -- >> --+447979090626 <tel:%2B447979090626> -- >> --mail@erikros.me <mailto:mail@erikros.me> -- >> --http://erikros.me -- >> -- @erikros_me -- >> -- +ErikRos_ejfrme -- >> ========================= >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2015 21:03:51 UTC