The mic, the minister has attempted to explain what benefits we would have from a single authentication, but without great success. "(These credentials, ndr) may be used for access to the services of the private. - continued Pisano to clarify - For example, our bank account, ( ... ), or to buy on Amazon. Every time we have a user and password, this user and password should be given by the State, because State is the only entity that really has the certainty that the one is that of the city. And she knows how many scams there are on the Internet identity".
Open up the sky. The possibility of a single logon, simplified, but eterodiretto by a public entity that would have full control - and it would even ensure the conservation, - is not that to frighten even the experts in cybersecurity.
let's clear the field from every misunderstanding: the digital identity will be issued by the State and will serve to identify the citizen in a way that is unique to the State itself. In the future, companies and citizens, who so wish, COULD be further system authentication— Paola Pisano (@PaolaPisano_Min) January 4, 2020
"A single password and even the State?", says Paul's Blog , debunkers, and author of the blog "The Transplantation." summarizing the doubts the most popular on the nodes of the question. The unique choice of credentials to use for any online service that would increase the risks of infringement and use by criminals. On the other, the window that would open to the control of the activities of the individual citizen from the part of the institutions.
To me, this thing puts the chills and I stopped in for love of country https://t.co/88TsMBhphV— reality (@reality) January 4, 2020
In summary, as explained in Post: "would Mean to connect to private activities (which should not affect a State) to those that relate to the State (taxes, certificates, public documents)". In the face of such and such transparency, we are ready to make purchase by sharing all of our private life?