31–40 of 114 posts
As a French person, I'm confused as to why DigiD is not a government-run project like FranceConnect is. I'm even more bewildered that an American company thought that they could take over the national identity management system of an European country, as if this was business as usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DigiD is a government project. It's owned and operated by Logius, which is a government-owned entity. Logius outsourced the hosting and infrastructure to Solvinity.
That's a bit better but it shifts the question: Why did they not mandate national (or at least EU-based) hosting and infra ? It feels a bit insane in retrospect for such a critical digital service ?
They did, and they moved to block the acquisition of the local company handling it. What's unclear in the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases its illegal to set up something inside the public org. It needs to be put out as a public offer. It's part of New public management pushed by neoliberal interests.
Bullshit. Its not illegal.
Post and trains already had to be privatised since them being government owned was deemed anti competitive by EU standards
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases its illegal to set up something inside the public org. It needs to be put out as a public offer. It's part of New public management pushed by neoliberal interests.
Bullshit. Its not illegal.
Good luck with digital id. Not gonna play along. No matter what.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DigiD is a government project. It's owned and operated by Logius, which is a government-owned entity. Logius outsourced the hosting and infrastructure to Solvinity.
That's a bit better but it shifts the question: Why did they not mandate national (or at least EU-based) hosting and infra ? It feels a bit insane in retrospect for such a critical digital service ?
The people who pointed out that none of the moving parts of DigiD should have been outsourced were ignored until the tide shifted this year.
I'm honestly surprised the government decided to intervene. The usual method is to keep on believing in the signed piece of paper until the shit hits the fan (like with the Fyra high speed trains) — never mind that the US (where the buyer is from) is not likely to give a toss about those pieces of paper if they need something from our data.
As a French person, I'm confused as to why DigiD is not a government-run project like FranceConnect is. I'm even more bewildered that an American company thought that they could take over the national identity management system of an European country, as if this was business as usual.
The entire customs system of all of China used to be run by European foreigners. Not because of Western imperialism, but on invitation from the Chinese rulers, as a measure to combat corruption. Some European countries right now have their currency printing and their passport printing outsourced to foreign nations. These things aren't too unusual.
None of the sharks ultimately ever managed to agree who gets to eat it- because whoever did would upset the balance between the sharks.
But China and America are mega sharks who don't care about balance and want to eat everything or die trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit better but it shifts the question: Why did they not mandate national (or at least EU-based) hosting and infra ? It feels a bit insane in retrospect for such a critical digital service ?
> Why did they not mandate national (or at least EU-based) hosting and infra ? They did, and they moved to block the acquisition of the local company handling it. What's unclear in the article?
> Currently, DigiD is partially managed by Solvinity, a company owned by a British investor
Britain is neither local nor in the EU
Finally taking the digital threath from USA, Israel and China serious.
When EU ID is needed for Eurovision voting we can all act surprised by the change in rankings.
“Huh. Israel hardly got any votes this year.”