Like sepa, this initiative can be forced by law and made open rather than tanken hostage by large cooperates, which may then exclude parts of the market.
> To me it is reasonable that orgs may want to eventually reuse an email address on a different user account. That's a feature decision made by the IdP so SPs need to respect it
I think everyone, including the authors hopefully agrees with that logic and sentiment. And that would be the literal point of the sub claim after all!
But the implication in the article is still, as i read it, that it changes in place in practice, and not in the case of re-creating the user under the same workspace. But i obviously do not have the background to clarify!
But authors does imply that sub will also change in place for users in step #1, without the workspace beeing recreated. And as such the sub is not usable as a general identifier for the user resource differentiation.
So if everyone is responsible for their own actions, why are you including Ukraine in this context? After all this is in isolation Russia committing (yet another) crime.
That analogy seems more in line with the risk of gas leaks and explosions.
The subject here is more that in addition to that, every time you use the pool, you have to gobbel down a bit of posion water. But in addition to that, you depend on using that thing almost daily.
The reporting with the new information about the case, nor the whistelblower outing is from 2020. See the timeline in the end of the following danish article:
Based on your stance it seems that you have not seen the intentions declared in the original PR, including opt-in approaches and the use of data solely for development and UX improvements?
Just to clarify, many portfolios are created in a way that lending allowed is ON by default, as such people may not be explicitly by the actual owner, but something that the given trading platform does using your underlying assets.
This is similar to how the bank may lend out your current balance and not actually hold ALL of the money that its customers has in their accounts.
In addition to be in quiet explicit breach of contract and extremely unethical, attitude given the world situation, you still do realise that if EU had done the same and restricted exports of the BioNTech vaccine GB had been even more in the shitter.
Now try to imagine a world where the development of the Oxford vaccine had failed. And EU based companies had had the success in their place, would you still be having a laugh, given that GB would be on the end of the unfulfilled contract?