I don't get what your point is here, you said this and that is what I argued against, your points here does nothing to defend this: "For anyone who’s about to say that surveillance isn’t the point of this legislation".
> Unlike the Browser/CA forum rules which are security focused, EIDAS comes from a government mandate first and foremost, so the concern isn’t entirely subjective as you suggest.
I didn't say this was subjective. My argument was that it is easy to see why EU would do this without having surveillance in mind. They just wanted all certificates to follow the same standard, the main part of these standards were document signing and they thought web sites are documents so we add them as well to the standard.
> so bringing up “should” in this context isn’t helping the point you’re typing to make.
I didn't make a distinction between should and must there, that wasn't my point at all. What was hard to understand there? This bill is first and foremost about document signing, and then they added a clause that it also applies to browsers. That is the main part of my argument.
A bill that first and foremost targets document signing doesn't seem like it was obviously made to add spying on browsers, if that is what they wanted they would have labeled it "web protection bill" or something like they did with the chat one, they aren't afraid of saying it is about spying when that is what they want.
More healthier approach for the EU to get e.g. the document signing to a single standard would be
- Make sure there is an open standard (is there?)
- Fund and promote its open source development
- Have an industry lobbyist non-profit to onboard individual businesses
If the goal is to ”promote standards” the way this is being done does not seem to be aligned the 50 years of software industry standard development, with the examples like TCP/IP, PNG, AV1 and so on.
> Unlike the Browser/CA forum rules which are security focused, EIDAS comes from a government mandate first and foremost, so the concern isn’t entirely subjective as you suggest.
I didn't say this was subjective. My argument was that it is easy to see why EU would do this without having surveillance in mind. They just wanted all certificates to follow the same standard, the main part of these standards were document signing and they thought web sites are documents so we add them as well to the standard.
> so bringing up “should” in this context isn’t helping the point you’re typing to make.
I didn't make a distinction between should and must there, that wasn't my point at all. What was hard to understand there? This bill is first and foremost about document signing, and then they added a clause that it also applies to browsers. That is the main part of my argument.
A bill that first and foremost targets document signing doesn't seem like it was obviously made to add spying on browsers, if that is what they wanted they would have labeled it "web protection bill" or something like they did with the chat one, they aren't afraid of saying it is about spying when that is what they want.