Another aspect in this context.

Innovation is creative destruction, i.e. change. No change means no innovation. And in a truly free market, action always create value and change always create more value.

But my point is that the markets are not free. Technology is abused to market distortion through bad standards as bad regulation enforcing certain interests in preventing competition and change.

You do NOT solve this problem merely by some add-on to the existing, you need to change the existing which does NOT work.

Infrastructure communication is a mess. Payments, mobile, identity, application architecture, device design etc. are not designed for a fully digitized and always connected world from neither an economic (continous upgrade, interoperability, empowerment) or security (isolation, no-leak, no re-use of keys or identifiers, contextual valiudation etc.) perspective.

We did a lot of work on these aspects in the EU IP Project Hydra making middleware to support resolution and model-driven interoperability of ambient devices.

My focus was to make the hardest part of interoperable security - a problem prior to the project considered theoretically impossibe, but solved even though not fully implemented in the source code (see Linksmart in Sourgeforge).

EU need to -enforce Net Neutrality in infrastructure on the logical field, i.e. to ensure that communication protocols and standards are not hi-jacked by commercial kartels.

"standards" are abused to make bad and enforced regulation the backdoor.

E.g. EMV-payments and mobile phones are dis-empowering by design destroying net neutrality as it makes every junction a "police or commercial control post" and all channels a gatekeeper with articifiscial scarcity for profit which we would never allow in the physical world.

An example is RFID, where NFC is a closed structure forcing in telecom operator/device control control on top of a standard that was open for model driven-interoperability (ISO 14443b and ISO 15693). EU did a lot of talk on RFID, but allowed the bad part of industry to take everybody hostage for their commercial interests in serverside remote control making RFID the exact disaster as predicted and getting worse with NFC/proximity-based payments which are easy to fraud.

EU is making the same mistakes again in eSignature, Car-to-x and Payments.

To put it short - EU needs to start alligning the Actions with the fine words. The talk on "Data Protection" and COnsumer Rights are 100% undermined as these are soft talk on principles undermined by the underlying hard technology implementation where the real regulation occur.

Look to the "Cookie" or ePrivacy Directive which has been 100% ignored through nonsense "Do-not-track" by the non-legitimate and serious market diststorting Behavioural Profiling industry.

If EU used the same means applied in Data Retention, Anti-money-laundering and the other paranoia-regulation, european citizens would be empowred through technology design.

If Europe wants reality behind the words, they should NOT "trust" their consent is abided to, but through technology have enforced that only what they have consented to CAN occur while at the same time force open communication channels for model-driven and end-to-end secure structures. Or in other words KILL the systemic abuse of technology to commercial control and ownership of people and relationtions.

EU cannot as a policitical create value or jobs, but the political system is responsible for the market framework (incl. the public sector which is even worse) that both need open and interoperability resolution in infrastructure AND empowered citizens.

EU softtalks like a democracy but hard acts like the exact authoritarian bureaucratic regime that it was supposed to protect Europe from - and that is the by far biggest source of low growth.

If you look at the DAE Action points, generally speaking they are more of the same that created the problems. The DAE will NOT - in the present form of actions - create value, jobs, security or sustainable rights/justice.

The reason is that the paradigm applied is about commercialising social relationships, paranoid Command & control economics, surveillance instead of security and looking at innovation as mere invention (technology push instead of market restoration facilitating needs-driven change).

As a simple example and key measurement of success - payments needs Digital Cash, ie. where NOBODY without exeption except the customer can know who bought from whom.

(In arallel we need better parameterized security to non-invasively validate a range of issues to prevent fraud in transactions, but that will not occur as long as secure payments are prevented through bad EMV/NFC-technology and anti-market regulation like anti-money laundering enforcing identification in transactions).

EU need to decide if it represent a return to Eastern European-style surveillance-based command & cntrol economics (in my view a certain failure already ongoing) or they want to put action behind the words and Empower citizens both as customers and Value creators through Innovative actions.

Digital Cash and Empowerment is also key to payments for content to restore the dysfunction media and digital service markets from the present "Content for Personal Data to profiling & abuse" - paradigm.

Ok - lets talk empowered payments.

An empowering payment would e.g. be physicial cash or direct exchange (swapping one product/service for another).

You are talking about SMS payments which are dis-empowering, non-open and market distorting in at least three layers:
a) Account-to-Account payments implies a third party interfering out of your control.
b) SMS is a non-open and non-secure protocol - no encryption, no pseudonymisation and locked to a walled garden in the mobile kartel structure
c) Mobile phones are non-secure trojan devices under 100% control of the telecom operator.

Each of these layers can and should be restructured for empowerment.
a) Empowered Payment tokens are one-time-only selfcontrained proofs, not an authorisation to pull money from your account.
b) the network layer should be open, encryptable, model-driven and universally addressable.
c) No gatekeeper or extern control turning your communication devices into intravenous remore control of you for overcharging or commercial taxation.

Sure, it might appear "easy" or "convenient", but an empowered model could without problem match this. A critical element of empowerment is that no third party would know who interacts and the counterparty only optionally.

E.g This
http://newsroom.mastercard.com/press-releases/mastercard-simplifies-shop...
is a total surveillance and lock-in technology which can in no way be acceptable in a free democracy.

We have one simple requirememt - Mastercard must not be technically able to link two transactions with the same citizens or device.

No - far from it. Consumers will be powerless as they are made trabsparant. They need the power to enforce a NO and enforce isolation.

We are talking fundamental market processes here - consent is ignored, circumvented, assumed, blackmailed etc. It is NOT enough - far from it.

But I am not saying we shouldnt have an eSignature - the present is simply just forcing standardisation on the wrong level where NOBODY gain.

NO - it is moving forward.

a) You isolate transactions in order to enable sharing intra-context. Providers regain control over intermediators and is able to share data with 3rd party without risks because the citizen is in control of sharing outside context (abuse).

From the honest corporate perspective isoaltion means security and easier business through less bureaucracy (e.g. consent is implicit and revocation guaranteed).

b) Citizens can THEMSELVES reuse data from one context in another context, ie. you ensure control is alligned in the value chains and the end-customer as the ONLY able to put a value to the value chain has control.

Citizens are not isolated, they are empowered to share without loosing control.

c) Notice that this ALSO apply to the public sector where the economic processes dont work because there are no competiition or customers to drive change and progress.

The lack of effectiveness drivers can be addressed through data control. But you do not have empowerment untill citizens are able to reuse data WITHOUT linking unrelated transactions. When so, public sector systems can move from a control-centric to a service-centric paradigme.

I can overload you with solution aspects, but it will not answer your question and even less convince you - until you understand and accept the strategic imperative.

This is not a technology or regulatory quick-fix, but the man-on-the-moon vision lacking in the DAE and guiding actions across regulation, technology, security and economics.

Except it will generate growth, security and justice at every junction point in a positive spiral as more citizens, applications, organisations, infrastructure channels and technologies are enabled.

If you look to the present DAE, the action points are seriously counter-productive.

E.g. eId is growth preventing and security destructive rather than supporting the objectives. Instead of Identification, you need to see it a layered structure that create prupose-specific Identities (pseudonyms as true subsets of validated security assertions about the person) with security customized to the multi-stakeholder context.

eIdentity is creassting value if it can enable transcations with a security balance that PREVENT identification (protect and empower the citizne) while preventing crime.

But we need to look beyond one-size-fits-all (truning into digtial concrete) and make it a set of security assertions providing proof of different aspects of identity. That require standards for resolution and a much more flexible view.

With that you can eliminate the gatekeeper struktucs in e.g. payments (e.g. require digital cash enabled as part of SEPA) and mobile computing (device virtalization) that are strongly dis-empowering.

EU has been damaging both the economy and security with primitive and destructive iniatives like ICAO Passports, Data Retention end eId for more than a decade while rendering e.g. Data Protection Regulation impotent and unenforcable softtalk.

EU needs to get its act together and allign the elements to get citizens needs and demand in fron of the value chains instead of today where control of ownership of people is prioritized by both an ever more authoritarian bureacurazy and aggresively invasive commercial infrastructure.

You can share all you want intra-context as long as you can revoke the identity and create new ones.

Re-empowering consumers and forcing valu chains to adapt to people require not only the "Right to be forgotten" but the actual POWER to enforce data revocation by never having surrendered control in the first place.