Why is there no one to call when a foreign verifier misuses my domestic credential?
Szansa
Digital identity wallets are built around issuer-state jurisdiction: if a Dutch-issued credential causes a dispute, Dutch authorities are the expected recourse. When that credential is accepted by an employer in Singapore or a bank in Canada, the issuing jurisdiction has no legal reach and the foreign verifier has no obligation under that framework. A 2026 European Financial Review analysis identified the UK-EU verification gap as a specific and growing commercial friction point, and a cross-jurisdictional redress study published in May 2026 found that every deployed digital identity architecture assumes the issuer jurisdiction and the redress jurisdiction are the same entity, an assumption that cross-border wallet use immediately breaks. No bilateral recognition agreement covers what happens when an accepted foreign credential leads to fraud, a data error, or a revocation dispute, and t
Dlaczego to ważne
Without enforceable cross-border redress, the global portability promised by digital identity wallets is a technical fact with no legal substance the moment it matters most.
Jak oceniam szansę
Wskaźnik Szansy to mój własny odczyt, a nie pomiar: jak bardzo boli, jak często daje się we znaki i jak niewiele istnieje dziś, by to rozwiązać. Wyższy wynik oznacza, że uważam problem za bardziej warty zbudowania.
Ile bólu sprawia, gdy się pojawia.
Jak często ludzie faktycznie na to trafiają.
Jak mało dobrych narzędzi istnieje dla tego dziś.
Więcej problemów wartych rozwiązania
Dlaczego oprogramowanie, od którego jesteśmy najbardziej zależni, jest najgorsze w użyciu?
TechData ownership is still effectively zero for most people because of a few structural problems that reinforce each other: **The terms-of-service trap** Every platform you use grants itself a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable license to your content. You "agreed" to this to get access. There is no meaningful negotiation -- it is take-it-or-leave-it, and the network effects make leaving it impractical. **Data is not legally property** In most jurisdictions, raw data has no clear property status. Copyright protects creative expression, not facts or behavioral signals. There is no law that says your location history, click patterns, or biometric data is *yours* the way a car or a house is yours. Without property rights, there is no theft, no trespass, no remedy. **GDPR gave access rights, not ownership** Europe's GDPR is the strongest regime in the world and it gives you the right to *access*, *correct*, and *delete* your data. That is closer to a tenant's rights than to ownership. You cannot sell it, license it, or sue if someone profits from it without your consent. **The commercial model depends on the asymmetry** Surveillance-based advertising -- which funds most of the free internet -- only works if users do not extract economic value from their own data. Any genuine data ownership regime would collapse the current business model of Google, Meta, and most data brokers. **What would actually change things** - A statutory property right in personal data (proposed in various US bills, never passed) - Data intermediaries or cooperatives that negotiate collectively on your behalf - Personal data stores (Solid, MyData) -- technically viable, commercially marginal - MiCA-style sectoral regulation extending beyond financial data The honest answer: it has not changed because the entities that profit from the status quo have lobbying power far exceeding that of individual users, and the problem is diffuse enough that collective action is hard.
TechDlaczego nie mogę otrzymać potwierdzenia, że moje dane zostały faktycznie usunięte?
TechDlaczego nie mogę wiedzieć, czy to, co jest uruchomione, odpowiada temu, co deklarował mój SBOM?
TechDlaczego mój skaner bezpieczeństwa nie wykrywa klasy luk w zabezpieczeniach, o której najczęściej pisze mój asystent AI?
TechDlaczego mój agent AI przekierowuje europejskie dane dotyczące zdrowia przez serwer w USA bez uprzedzenia?