There's nothing wrong with doing it that way. That's just making the data more available. As long as it's making things better and/or cheaper for the customer, it's positive. Nothing is preventing anyone else doing the same.

Paying for priority access to the pipe is the problem.

Microsoft was always trying to take over. At that point they were pushing .NET as the official way to make new applications. Unlike Windows Mobile they weren't stupid enough to deprecate all other methods, so they didn't destroy themselves completely... alas.

Except not to you. You're confusing data minimization (the website doesn't get your name from the token) with unlinkability (nobody can connect your activity to your identity). The *token itself* doesn't reveal your identity, but it leaks data in a wide variety of ways.

Even if you browse via a proxy, if the authorization service gets a token directly from your phone, it has now correlated your phone with your proxy-browsed history. A very common means to do secure authentication these days is SIM-based wireless PKI, wheren it has now connected you to your phone number. To governments, it offers a broad range of brand new vectors to correlate you to an identity if you, say, mention you had an abortion or criticize your local strongman leader, since they control the backend infrastructure that establishes the connection between the token and the identity. And not just at signup time every real-world digital credential must be able to be revoked if the phone is lost or stolen, or credentials expire or are revoked. So how does how does the open-source app prove a credential is still valid without "phoning home"? If the app checks a revocation status list, then ISPs, CDNs, or state security services can correlate the exact millisecond of queries to the revocation server with the submission of a verification token to a platform - each time it's submitted. Assuming that they can't just get it with more direct means than timing attacks.

Also, you cannot just "read the code". The frontend is open source, but what is being done on the backend is not. You have no clue what logging polciies, database schemas, operational security, etc the "designated national issuers" or servers handling the credential revocation are using, and what government intrusion has been forced on them. I'd feel a more comfortable if it were all happening from Brussels but handing it over to individual states, some of which at any given point will be authoritarian, is just handing them an easy new vector to unmask people.

As for your "Such systems are implemented in many different ways by member states for other purposes already." - yes, for filing taxes, healthcare, online baking, etc - things that you intend to do and must do under your legal identity. Not for anonymous conversations on the internet. Your argument basically reverts to "But people already do things non-anoymously on the internet , which reinforces my point that yes, this taking something from the "anonymous" category and putting it into the "easily unmasked" category.

If you think this won't be abused, I cannot help you. Not even just abused from a criminal or extrajudicial perspective, but even from a civil one, because orders to unmask someone can be subpoenaed.

It's standard here in Iceland. *Everything* verifies via the phone, using the same authorization mechanism (SIM-based wireless PKI). The service sends out a special-coded SMS, which gets intercepted and routed to a SIM that has cryptographic applet flashed into it, which triggers a system-level authorization popup for you to confirm (the popup displays a verification code which was included by the site, so you see the same code on both the site and your popup), and which you can then confirm (with your PIN) or reject.

It absolutely happens "within hours of each other" when (A) some news comes up on the topic, and (B) all you have to do is type into a box, "Find a vulnerability in this software". This isn't a situation where bug-hunting is a weeks or months-long process that takes all your effort.

I'll repeat: LLMs don't just on their own decide to go off and look for bugs to report.

"Member states run it through issuers they designate,"

Say goodbye to online anonymity then.

LLMs have certainly made people get really into conspiracy theories. *eyeroll*

The LLMs didn't just off on their own decide to look for hypervisor bugs. Users told it to look for hypervisor bugs. The timing means that multiple users did so at roughly the same time - probably in response to some news of some sort.

Did you forget how to read halfway through my comment?

TIL.

Suicide at age 52. Shame. :(

Wow, a whole game engine?

A lot more than that uses C#, but C# didn't take over, which of course is what Microsoft wanted. But it was never going to happen for many many reasons. That's why Microsoft has to use the EEE strategy, which at least is somewhat successful for them. Their ability to use it is waning as they become less relevant, but they remain hugely influential due to their massive installed base so they can still fuck things up pretty good and will likely be able to for decades yet.

Their attempt to do that was called C#. It failed. Not everything someone tries succeeds. For example, you tried to be smart there, whoops!

Now do the USA

You just called bullshit on sometime I didn't say, clown. I never said all this were the fault of one party but YOU made it into that because YOU are hyper partisan. Get fucked with your hypocrisy.

There was literally nothing even slightly off topic about the GP comment.

Netflix pays ISPs to put a CDN server on their premises.