[HN Gopher] European Parliament approves mass surveillance of pr...
___________________________________________________________________
European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private
communication
Author : pepperberg
Score : 508 points
Date : 2021-07-06 20:20 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patrick-breyer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patrick-breyer.de)
| jimbob45 wrote:
| >Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such
| as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor.
|
| Isn't Signal FOSS? I don't know how they'd police that when
| everyone can just fork it and remove the back door. Also don't
| VPNs circumvent this legislation as well? How will they police
| self-hosted email servers?
|
| I know the response to these questions is usually "You're right,
| this is what happens when the techno-illiterate write laws" but I
| genuinely can't think of how I would go about doing this if I was
| the one who wanted a back door.
| soziawa wrote:
| > Isn't Signal FOSS? I don't know how they'd police that when
| everyone can just fork it and remove the back door.
|
| If the goal is large scale surveillance, it can be combatted
| fairly effectively as has been shown with e.g. kino.to and
| other streaming sites which have gone practivally extinct. The
| same would happen to websites hosting illegal apps.
|
| If the goal is to go after real criminals this is of course
| useless. But EncroChat [1] has shown that at least large parts
| of the criminal world don't seem to have great operation
| security practices.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| This would also include any non EU citizens communications with
| an EU citizen. Also you might be an EU citizen without realising
| (by descent)
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Thai comment makes no sense whatsoever and i do wonder what
| absurd world you imagine. This law gives companies in the EU
| the legal grounds to do some scanning measures, it is neither
| an obligation to do so, nor when companies do so is anyone
| checking whether you, a person outside the EU, happen to have
| European ancestors. Logically of course that applies to
| residents, as would the laws in any other place.
| cachvico wrote:
| Warning - this is a work of fiction, or satire.
|
| Mods - perhaps you want to adjust the title.
| josho wrote:
| Sadly I believe this is legit. Here's a better* source
| https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform...
|
| *This source at least explains the other side of the issue.
| tephra wrote:
| It should be noted that this allows for the continuation of
| voluntary scanning and reporting to CSAM that some companies
| do for all messages that goes via their platforms.
|
| This is also a temporary legislation that will be in place
| until a long term legislation is in place.
|
| Regardless of that I do think this legislation is bad.
| gary_0 wrote:
| How is it satire? Wikipedia[0] says that Patrick Breyer is a
| real MEP and this is his official blog.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Breyer
| rapnie wrote:
| Yes he is. Here are twitter and fediverse accounts:
|
| - https://chaos.social/@echo_pbreyer
|
| - https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Really? It seems to refer to this: https://iapp.org/news/a/eu-
| lawmakers-close-to-agreement-on-t... which looks to be very
| much true.
| throwaways885 wrote:
| Legitimately terrifying that a new surveillance state can be
| announced and nobody knows if it's satire or not.
| NumberCruncher wrote:
| Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights
| is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and
| trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the
| outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of
| witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation
| suicided a way sooner, later, more silently, or at all? We will
| never know...
| f6v wrote:
| Damn CCP! Oh, wait...
| baybal2 wrote:
| Full name list
|
| ECR: Bourgeois, Jurzyca, Kanko, Melbarde, Terhes, Van Overtveldt,
| Zile
|
| NI: Beghin, Buschmann, Castaldo, Comin i Oliveres, Ferrara,
| Furore, Gemma, Giarrusso, Gyongyosi, Pignedoli, Ponsati Obiols,
| Puigdemont i Casamajo, Regimenti, Rondinelli, Rookmaker, Sincic,
| Sonneborn, Vuolo
|
| PPE: Adamowicz, Ademov, Adinolfi Isabella, Alexandrov Yordanov,
| Amaro, Arias Echeverria, Arimont, Arlukowicz, Asimakopoulou,
| Basescu, Bellamy, Benjumea Benjumea, Bentele, Berendsen, Berger,
| Berlusconi, Bernhuber, Bilcik, Blaga, Bogdan, Bogovic, Buda,
| Busoi, Caroppo, Carvalho, Casa, Caspary, del Castillo Vera,
| Christoforou, Clune, Colin-Oesterle, van Dalen, Danjean, De Meo,
| Didier, Doleschal, Dorfmann, Duda, Dupont, Ehler, Estaras
| Ferragut, Evren, Falca, Ferber, Fernandes, Fitzgerald, Fourlas,
| Frankowski, Gahler, Garcia-Margallo y Marfil, Geuking, Gieseke,
| Glavak, Gonzalez Pons, Halicki, Hansen, Hava, Herbst, Hetman,
| Hohlmeier, Holvenyi, Hortefeux, Hubner, Jahr, Jarubas,
| Jukneviciene, Kalinowski, Kalniete, Kanev, Karas, Kefalogiannis,
| Kelly, Kopacz, Kovatchev, Kubilius, Kympouropoulos, Kyrtsos, de
| Lange, Lega, Lenaers, Lewandowski, Lexmann, Liese, Lins, Lopez
| Gil, Lopez-Isturiz White, Lukacijewska, Lutgen, McAllister,
| Maldeikiene, Manders, Mandl, Marinescu, Markey, Martusciello,
| Mato, Maydell, Mazylis, Meimarakis, Melo, Metsola, Millan Mon,
| Monteiro de Aguiar, Montserrat, Morano, Mortler, Motreanu,
| Muresan, Niebler, Niedermayer, Nistor, Novak, Novakov, Ochojska,
| Olbrycht, Patriciello, Pereira Lidia, Pieper, Pietikainen,
| Polcak, Polfjard, Pollak, Pospisil, Radev, Radtke, Rangel,
| Ressler, Sagartz, Salini, Sander, Sarvamaa, Schmiedtbauer,
| Schneider, Schreijer-Pierik, Schulze, Schwab, Seekatz, Sikorski,
| Simon, Skyttedal, Sojdrova, Sokol, Spyraki, Stefanec, Tajani,
| Terras, Thaler, Thun und Hohenstein, Tobe, Tomac, Tomc, Vaidere,
| Vandenkendelaere, Verheyen, Vincze, Virkkunen, Voss, Vozemberg-
| Vrionidi, Walsh, Walsmann, Warborn, Weber, Weiss, Wieland,
| Wiezik, Winkler, Winzig, Wiseler-Lima, Zagorakis, Zarzalejos,
| Zdechovsky, Zoido Alvarez, Zovko, Zver
|
| Renew: Alieva-Veli, Al-Sahlani, Andrews, Ansip, Austrevicius,
| Azmani, Bauza Diaz, Beer, Bijoux, Bilbao Barandica, Botos, Boyer,
| Brunet, Canas, Canfin, Chabaud, Charanzova, Chastel, Christensen,
| Cicurel, Ciolos, Cseh, Danti, Decerle, Dlabajova, Donath, Durand,
| Duris Nicholsonova, Eroglu, Farreng, Flego, Gade, Gamon,
| Garicano, Gheorghe, Gluck, Goerens, Gozi, Groothuis, Groselj,
| Grudler, Guetta, Hahn Svenja, Hayer, Hlavacek, Hojsik, Huitema,
| Ijabs, in 't Veld, Joveva, Karleskind, Karlsbro, Katainen,
| Kelleher, Keller Fabienne, Knotek, Korner, Kovarik, Kyuchyuk,
| Loiseau, Lokkegaard, Melchior, Mihaylova, Mituta, Muller,
| Nagtegaal, Nart, Oetjen, Paet, Pagazaurtundua, Pekkarinen,
| Petersen, Pislaru, Rafaela, Ries, Riquet, Rodriguez Ramos,
| Schreinemacher, Sejourne, Semedo, Simecka, Solis Perez,
| Stefanuta, Strugariu, Sogaard-Lidell, Tolleret, Toom, Torvalds,
| Trillet-Lenoir, Tudorache, Vautmans, Vedrenne, Verhofstadt,
| Vazquez Lazara, Wiesner, Yon-Courtin, Zacharopoulou, Zullo
|
| S&D: Agius Saliba, Aguilera, Ameriks, Andrieu, Androulakis,
| Angel, Ara-Kovacs, Arena, Avram, Balt, Barley, Bartolo, Belka,
| Benea, Benifei, Benova, Bergkvist, Biedron, Bischoff,
| Blinkeviciute, Bonafe, Borzan, Brglez, Bullmann, Burkhardt,
| Calenda, Carvalhais, Cerdas, Chahim, Chinnici, Cimoszewicz,
| Ciuhodaru, Ciz, Cozzolino, Cretu, Cutajar, Danielsson, De Castro,
| Dobrev, Dura Ferrandis, Engerer, Ertug, Fajon, Fernandez,
| Ferrandino, Fritzon, Fuglsang, Galvez Munoz, Garcia Del Blanco,
| Garcia Munoz, Garcia Perez, Gardiazabal Rubial, Gebhardt, Geier,
| Glucksmann, Gonzalez, Gonzalez Casares, Grapini, Gualmini,
| Guillaume, Guteland, Hajsel, Heide, Heinaluoma, Homs Ginel,
| Hristov, Incir, Jerkovic, Jongerius, Kaili, Kaljurand,
| Kammerevert, Kohut, Koster, Krehl, Kumpula-Natri, Lalucq, Lange,
| Larrouturou, Leitao-Marques, Lopez, Lopez Aguilar, Luena, Maestre
| Martin De Almagro, Majorino, Maldonado Lopez, Marques Margarida,
| Marques Pedro, Matic, Mavrides, Maxova, Mebarek, Mikser, Miller,
| Molnar, Moreno Sanchez, Moretti, Negrescu, Neuser, Nica, Noichl,
| Olekas, Papadakis Demetris, Penkova, Picierno, Picula, Pisapia,
| Pizarro, Plumb, Regner, Reuten, Roberti, Rodriguez-Pinero, Ronai,
| Ros Sempere, Ruiz Devesa, Sanchez Amor, Sant, Santos,
| Schaldemose, Schieder, Schuster, Sidl, Silva Pereira, Sippel,
| Smeriglio, Stanishev, Tang, Tarabella, Tax, Tinagli, Toia,
| Tudose, Ujhelyi, Usakovs, Van Brempt, Vind, Vitanov, Vollath,
| Wolken, Wolters, Yoncheva, Zorrinho
|
| The Left: Arvanitis, Aubry, Barrena Arza, Bjork, Bompard,
| Botenga, Chaibi, Daly, Demirel, Ernst, Flanagan, Georgoulis,
| Gusmao, Hazekamp, Kokkalis, Konecna, Kouloglou, Kountoura,
| MacManus, Matias, Maurel, Michels, Modig, Omarjee, Papadimoulis,
| Pelletier, Pineda, Rego, Rodriguez Palop, Schirdewan, Scholz,
| Urban Crespo, Villanueva Ruiz, Villumsen, Wallace
|
| Verts/ALE: Alametsa, Alfonsi, Andresen, Auken, Biteau, Bloss,
| Boeselager, Breyer, Bricmont, Careme, Cavazzini, Cormand, Corrao,
| Cuffe, Dalunde, D'Amato, Delbos-Corfield, Delli, Deparnay-
| Grunenberg, Eickhout, Evi, Franz, Freund, Geese, Giegold,
| Gregorova, Gruffat, Guerreiro, Hahn Henrike, Hausling, Hautala,
| Herzberger-Fofana, Holmgren, Jadot, Keller Ska, Kolaja, Kuhnke,
| Lagodinsky, Lamberts, Langensiepen, Marquardt, Matthieu, Metz,
| Neumann, Nienass, Niinisto, O'Sullivan, Paulus, Pedicini, Peksa,
| Peter-Hansen, Reintke, Riba i Giner, Ripa, Rivasi, Roose, Rope,
| Satouri, Semsrott, Sole, Spurek, Strik, Toussaint, Urtasun, Vana,
| Van Sparrentak, Von Cramon-Taubadel, Waitz, Wiener, Yenbou,
| Zdanoka
| 7373737373 wrote:
| Are you sure these are the right names? These are the people
| who voted against it or abstained, right?
|
| Document:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0...
| (page 5)
| bwindels wrote:
| Is this the correct list? The document at
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0...
| seems to list votes for multiple proposals. AFAICT, the voting
| list for this proposal starts on page 5:
|
| Use of technologies for the processing of data for the purpose
| of combating online child sexual abuse (temporary derogation
| from Directive 2002/58/EC)
|
| In favour:
|
| ECR: Aguilar, Berg, Berlato, Bielan, Bourgeois, Brudzinski,
| Buxade Villalba, Czarnecki, de la Pisa Carrion, Dzhambazki,
| Fidanza, Fiocchi, Fitto, Fotyga, Fragkos, Ilcic, Jaki, Jurgiel,
| Jurzyca, Kanko, Karski, Kempa, Kloc, Kopcinska, Krasnodebski,
| Kruk, Kuzmiuk, Legutko, Lundgren, Mazurek, Melbarde, Milazzo,
| Mozdzanowska, Poreba, Procaccini, Rafalska, Ruissen, Rzonca,
| Saryusz-Wolski, Slabakov, Sofo, Stancanelli, Stegrud, Szydlo,
| Tarczynski, Tertsch, Tobiszowski, Tomasevski, Tosenovsky, Van
| Overtveldt, Vondra, Vrecionova, Waszczykowski, Weimers,
| Wisniewska, Zahradil, Zalewska, Zile, Zlotowski
|
| ID: Adinolfi Matteo, Androuet, Annemans, Baldassarre, Bardella,
| Basso, Bay, Beigneux, Bilde, Bizzotto, Bonfrisco, Borchia,
| Bruna, Campomenosi, Casanova, Ceccardi, Ciocca, Collard, Conte,
| Da Re, David, De Man, Dreosto, Gancia, Garraud, Grant, Griset,
| Hakkarainen, Huhtasaari, Jamet, Joron, Juvin, Kofod, Lacapelle,
| Lancini, Laporte, Lebreton, Lechanteux, Lizzi, Madison,
| Mariani, Melin, Olivier, Panza, Pirbakas, Rinaldi, Riviere,
| Rouge, Sardone, Tardino, Tovaglieri, Vandendriessche, Zambelli,
| Zanni
|
| NI: Beghin, Bocskor, Castaldo, Deli, Deutsch, Ferrara, Furore,
| Gal, Gemma, Giarrusso, Gyongyosi, Gyori, Gyurk, Hidveghi,
| Jaroka, Kolakusic, Kosa, Lagos, Pignedoli, Regimenti,
| Rondinelli, Schaller-Baross, Toth, Trocsanyi, Uspaskich, Vuolo
|
| PPE: Adamowicz, Ademov, Adinolfi Isabella, Alexandrov Yordanov,
| Amaro, Arias Echeverria, Arimont, Arlukowicz, Asimakopoulou,
| Basescu, Bellamy, Benjumea Benjumea, Bentele, Berendsen,
| Berger, Berlusconi, Bernhuber, Bilcik, Blaga, Bogdan, Bogovic,
| Buda, Busoi, Caroppo, Carvalho, Casa, Caspary, del Castillo
| Vera, Christoforou, Clune, Colin-Oesterle, van Dalen, Danjean,
| De Meo, Didier, Doleschal, Dorfmann, Duda, Dupont, Ehler,
| Estaras Ferragut, Evren, Falca, Ferber, Fernandes, Fitzgerald,
| Fourlas, Frankowski, Gahler, Garcia-Margallo y Marfil, Geuking,
| Gieseke, Glavak, Gonzalez Pons, Halicki, Hansen, Hava, Herbst,
| Hetman, Hohlmeier, Holvenyi, Hortefeux, Hubner, Jahr, Jarubas,
| Jukneviciene, Kalinowski, Kalniete, Kanev, Karas,
| Kefalogiannis, Kelly, Kopacz, Kovatchev, Kubilius,
| Kympouropoulos, Kyrtsos, de Lange, Lega, Lenaers, Lewandowski,
| Lexmann, Liese, Lins, Lopez Gil, Lopez-Isturiz White,
| Lukacijewska, Lutgen, McAllister, Maldeikiene, Manders, Mandl,
| Marinescu, Markey, Martusciello, Mato, Maydell, Mazylis,
| Meimarakis, Melo, Metsola, Millan Mon, Monteiro de Aguiar,
| Montserrat, Morano, Mortler, Motreanu, Muresan, Niebler,
| Niedermayer, Nistor, Novak, Novakov, Ochojska, Olbrycht,
| Patriciello, Pereira Lidia, Pieper, Pietikainen, Polcak,
| Polfjard, Pollak, Pospisil, Radev, Radtke, Rangel, Ressler,
| Sagartz, Salini, Sander, Sarvamaa, Schmiedtbauer, Schneider,
| Schreijer-Pierik, Schulze, Schwab, Seekatz, Sikorski, Simon,
| Skyttedal, Sojdrova, Sokol, Spyraki, Stefanec, Tajani, Terras,
| Thaler, Thun und Hohenstein, Tobe, Tomac, Tomc, Vaidere,
| Vandenkendelaere, Verheyen, Vincze, Virkkunen, Voss, Vozemberg-
| Vrionidi, Walsh, Walsmann, Warborn, Weber, Weiss, Wieland,
| Wiezik, Winkler, Winzig, Wiseler-Lima, Zagorakis, Zarzalejos,
| Zdechovsky, Zoido Alvarez, Zovko, Zver
|
| Renew: Alieva-Veli, Al-Sahlani, Andrews, Ansip, Austrevicius,
| Azmani, Bauza Diaz, Bijoux, Bilbao Barandica, Botos, Boyer,
| Brunet, Canas, Canfin, Chabaud, Charanzova, Chastel,
| Christensen, Cicurel, Ciolos, Cseh, Danti, Decerle, Dlabajova,
| Donath, Durand, Duris Nicholsonova, Farreng, Flego, Gade,
| Garicano, Gheorghe, Goerens, Gozi, Groothuis, Groselj, Grudler,
| Guetta, Hayer, Hlavacek, Hojsik, Huitema, Ijabs, in 't Veld,
| Karleskind, Karlsbro, Katainen, Kelleher, Keller Fabienne,
| Knotek, Kovarik, Kyuchyuk, Loiseau, Lokkegaard, Mihaylova,
| Mituta, Muller, Nagtegaal, Nart, Paet, Pagazaurtundua,
| Pekkarinen, Petersen, Pislaru, Rafaela, Ries, Riquet, Rodriguez
| Ramos, Schreinemacher, Sejourne, Semedo, Simecka, Solis Perez,
| Stefanuta, Strugariu, Sogaard-Lidell, Tolleret, Toom, Torvalds,
| Trillet-Lenoir, Tudorache, Vautmans, Vedrenne, Verhofstadt,
| Vazquez Lazara, Wiesner, Yon-Courtin, Zacharopoulou, Zullo
|
| S&D: Agius Saliba, Aguilera, Ameriks, Andrieu, Androulakis,
| Angel, Ara-Kovacs, Arena, Avram, Balt, Bartolo, Belka, Benea,
| Benifei, Benova, Bergkvist, Biedron, Blinkeviciute, Bonafe,
| Borzan, Brglez, Bullmann, Calenda, Carvalhais, Cerdas,
| Chinnici, Cimoszewicz, Ciuhodaru, Ciz, Cozzolino, Cretu,
| Cutajar, Danielsson, De Castro, Dobrev, Dura Ferrandis,
| Engerer, Ertug, Fajon, Fernandez, Fritzon, Fuglsang, Galvez
| Munoz, Garcia Del Blanco, Garcia Munoz, Garcia Perez,
| Gardiazabal Rubial, Gebhardt, Geier, Glucksmann, Gonzalez,
| Gonzalez Casares, Grapini, Gualmini, Guillaume, Guteland,
| Hajsel, Heide, Heinaluoma, Homs Ginel, Hristov, Incir,
| Jerkovic, Kaili, Kaljurand, Kohut, Koster, Krehl, Kumpula-
| Natri, Lalucq, Lange, Larrouturou, Leitao-Marques, Lopez, Lopez
| Aguilar, Luena, Maestre Martin De Almagro, Majorino, Maldonado
| Lopez, Marques Margarida, Marques Pedro, Matic, Mavrides,
| Maxova, Mebarek, Mikser, Miller, Molnar, Moreno Sanchez,
| Moretti, Negrescu, Neuser, Nica, Olekas, Papadakis Demetris,
| Penkova, Picierno, Picula, Pisapia, Pizarro, Plumb, Regner,
| Roberti, Rodriguez-Pinero, Ronai, Ros Sempere, Ruiz Devesa,
| Sanchez Amor, Sant, Santos, Schaldemose, Schieder, Schuster,
| Sidl, Silva Pereira, Sippel, Smeriglio, Stanishev, Tarabella,
| Tinagli, Toia, Tudose, Ujhelyi, Usakovs, Van Brempt, Vind,
| Vitanov, Vollath, Yoncheva, Zorrinho
|
| The Left: Maurel
|
| Verts/ALE: Dalunde, Holmgren, Kuhnke, Rope
| m0ck wrote:
| Thanks. I will be definitely contacting MEP I voted for, why he
| voted for this bullshit. Especially when he is from party which
| is supposedly all about personal freedoms.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Can this be true?
|
| I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for
| internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's the "it's OK when we do it" rationale
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.
| candiodari wrote:
| Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's
| getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated
| as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a
| bad divorce". Not "parents fighting".
|
| Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever
| reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what
| time period, but there is literally _no time period given_.
| When kids are asked _any_ time period is taken.
|
| Siblings ... insulting each other ... is now child abuse.
| Seriously.
|
| Serious medical problems of any caretaker figure ... is child
| abuse. WITHOUT any further qualification.
|
| And of course, government facilities, whether homeless, or at
| this point even any hospital, all constitute child abuse.
| This is apparently not a problem, only parents are
| problematic ...
|
| https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/
|
| Meanwhile, of course, the reputation of services attempting
| to address child abuse is atrocious. Violence is a constant
| everywhere in youth services in pretty much all countries.
| Both violence by youth services personnel, violence among
| kids within youth services, violence outside of youth
| services itself, but directly related (e.g. the police
| forcibly moving foster kids, or the reverse, drug couriers or
| prostitution rings "recruiting" in youth services, often with
| help from officials and/or caretakers)
|
| And we all know their reputations when it comes to raising
| succesful kids:
|
| https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-
| reports/article23820....
|
| Child abuse, itself, is dying. Less and less convictions,
| every year again. But there is ever more interference in the
| life of children by the government, with demonstrated
| atrocious results. And they want to be _tough on child
| abuse_? This will destroy far more kids ' lives than it will
| save ...
| agilob wrote:
| A decade ago I watched a documentary about MEP explaining how
| it happens that crappy law is made in EU. MEPs are too busy to
| read and understand what they are voting for or against. Law
| they are discussing often has 100s of pages, a few of such per
| day. One of the "ACTA" branded regulation was 800+ pages and
| the document changed daily. MEP have armies of secretaries and
| interns who as supposed to filter the important content and
| feed it MEPs directly. In meantime MEPs have meeting with
| lobbying groups and have their regular duties. They usually
| vote for what their group is voting for, or, lobbyists.
| rapnie wrote:
| I've seen a similar documentary a while ago, where it became
| apparent that some MEP's are so busy that lobbyist groups
| completely wrote their proposal documents and deposited them
| at their office to have them 'go with the flow' without any
| scrutiny whatsoever. Though officially all is legal, it
| strongly reeked of corruption, especially with some MEP's
| doing that very frequently.
| Aerroon wrote:
| As a reminder of what the EU has done previously:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
|
| > _According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states
| had to store citizens ' telecommunications data for a minimum
| of six months and at most twenty-four months._
|
| And they knew that this was illegal. They did it anyway. Same
| political body that now talks about protecting privacy.
| anfogoat wrote:
| There's no contradiction if you take the privacy part as what
| it is: marketing BS. It's not something the EU would ever
| actually defend or protect on principle. Any appearance to the
| contrary is coincidental, like the GDPR.
| choo-t wrote:
| It seems that the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [0] are as
| obvious as they are effective.
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
| chuck_throwaway wrote:
| Maybe brexit has it right - Europe isn't a good place to be a
| member of.
| bkor wrote:
| UK already has crazy laws around this. Brexit enabled more
| invasive laws to be implemented.
| throwaways885 wrote:
| As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular
| here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for
| privacy against just the UK government, rather than the
| entire EU bloc. I think if an entity as powerful as the EU
| puts this into legislation, it's game over.
|
| I have a similar view on federal laws in the United States -
| they don't tend to repeal federal surveillance laws without
| violence.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince
| 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own
| government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo
| because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws
| on the books that sosme country really hates.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| You are aware that every EU country votes on this, right? Every
| single piece of EU legislation you might have disliked was
| voted on by the UK government while it was a member. The Tory
| spin might have given you a different impression but its
| incredibly rare that an EU law doesn't have the assent of all
| countries.
| jlokier wrote:
| For everything the EU does that's unpleasant, the UK government
| tends to have a more unpleasant version they are eager to
| deploy against their own people, and now they can due to
| Brexit.
|
| Of course that's not how they portray it, but doublespeak has
| been strong around Brexit and still is.
|
| It never made much sense to Brexit if you were in the UK and
| favoured personal, family or human rights. Including rights
| like privacy and a protected private life, and freedom to make
| open source software (EU is against software patents, UK is
| not).
| alkonaut wrote:
| > Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such
| as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor.
|
| This is surely a fantastic extrapolation of this author. The
| chance of this happening is zero, which is also the chance of
| this being explicitly stated in the legal text.
|
| It would be a disaster of course. And extremely controversial.
| Which is why it doesn't just get passed under the radar, even as
| a temporary measure.
|
| Isn't there a copy of the actual legal text anywhere? Or a sober
| analysis of that text that isn't made by a member of the pirate
| party?
|
| Edit: Here
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
|
| It doesn't mention encryption, back doors, or forcing any entity
| to do anything. It does mention _allowing_ companies to
| temporarily continue current monitoring for child abuse under
| certain conditions. What exactly is the outrage about?
| aksss wrote:
| > the chance of this happening is zero
|
| https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/471/227/dd0...
| cassonmars wrote:
| Why would a company in the US (Signal) decide to comply with
| the doctrine of another country, especially a doctrine
| antithetical to their entire business?
| aksss wrote:
| Well, zero is not just a really small number.
|
| But to answer "why" would involve unpacking many direct and
| indirect motivations. First, I would never trust that any
| corporation has any doctrine that they would or could stand
| by ad infinitum given the right pressures.
|
| At the end of they day you're talking about humans. A group
| of self-interested humans. A group of self-interested
| humans whose makeup changes as directors and executives
| rotate out. A group whose intentions can be undercut by an
| individual. Think you that the "Snowden" move doesn't
| happen the other way around? Probably more frequent that
| the intelligence communities infiltrate private
| organizations with rogue contractors than they experience
| it themselves. Probably really dang easy to be honest.
|
| Since it came up earlier, I might just casually point to
| AT&T letting the NSA (or whomever) mirror all the traffic
| running through their network[0]. That would seem
| antithetical to their business, but obviously there are
| competing motivations. Where are those motivations sourced?
| Who makes the call? We don't know. I guess that's my point
| - you can't put faith in opaque decision making processes.
| I wouldn't rely on them, is all I'm saying. You could say
| the risk is low, but it's definitely not zero.
|
| [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-
| on-atts...
| alkonaut wrote:
| My point originally not whether anyone would comply, but
| whether such a measure would ever be worded, let alone
| enforced.
|
| The op article doesn't convince.
| wiz21c wrote:
| Are there safe havens ? Switzerland for example ?
| z3ncyberpunk wrote:
| Yes, Switzerland, one of the (already) most corrupt places...
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Whatever this law or proposal is, it sounds bad and I don't like
| it. The only one good thing would be if the ones who draft, pass
| and implement it are not exempt and equally subject to the
| invasive tentacles of the buerocrats.
|
| I can kinda understand how and why crime happens, but I never
| understood the motives or way of thought of the people who want
| this kind of stuff implemented.uch less the ones who vote for it.
| aksss wrote:
| Yeah, it's pretty funny how we have the government literally
| wiretapping and spying on journalists, and that's okay, but
| when it comes home to roost, the representatives don't like it
| when it happens to them. Funny probably isn't the right word.
|
| Obama: https://www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-
| records...
|
| Trump: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trump-doj-
| reporter-s...
|
| Surveillance for thee but not for me:
| https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-probably-congress-greenwald-arres...
| sergiomattei wrote:
| TIL. Not European, but this is madness.
| edrxty wrote:
| Are there any primary sources for this? I'm having trouble
| finding anything talking about any final legislative action
| involving chat control/ePrivacy etc. that isn't this random
| pirate party blog.
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform...
| scandox wrote:
| This is a much better source of information than the headline
| link. It describes how this came about, what its limitations
| are and just gives a whole lot more context.
|
| Of course it fails to advocate - which itself may have become
| a vice.
| fitblipper wrote:
| Rule of thumb: If something invokes "protect the children"
| to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating
| something. Not only that it is doing so in an underhanded
| and emotionally targeted way. I'm not saying politico is
| the primary source of advocacy in this situation, but they
| are at least echoing it and helping frame the debate around
| that.
| bitdivision wrote:
| I have not been able to find anything about final legislation
| either, though I did find some references [0] to the chat
| control legislation from June: [1].
|
| I haven't read through it all, but the notable paragraph seemed
| to be: This Regulation therefore provides
| for a temporary derogation from Article 5(1) and Article
| 6 of Directive 2002/58/EC, which protect the
| confidentiality of communications and traffic data.
|
| 'derogation' being a partial repeal of a law.
|
| [0]:https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/European-chat-
| control...
|
| [1]:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
|
| Edit: It does seem that the intention here was to allow tech
| companies that were previously scanning for child abuse to
| continue to do so after December 2020, see politico.eu article
| shoeffner wrote:
| In [1], pages 10 and 11 are the actual directive, the rest is
| the reasoning. And, although I don't know the previous
| directives and regulations, it reads as if this is
| essentially an extension of an exception to the ePrivacy
| directive for another five years.
|
| Birgit Sippel says in her statement to the president of the
| parliament [2]: > Dieses Gesetz ist eine Ubergangslosung fur
| drei Jahre. Die Kommission hatte versprochen, noch vor der
| Sommerpause einen neuen, dauerhaften Rahmen fur die
| Aufdeckung von Kindesmissbrauch vorzuschlagen. Jetzt dauert
| es noch bis September oder Oktober. Dafur erwarte ich einen
| deutlich verbesserten Vorschlag. Die langfristige Losung muss
| sich mindestens an den Datenschutzgarantien der temporaren
| Losung orientieren. Sie muss zwingend Losungen fur das
| gezieltere Scannen privater Kommunikation finden, sonst wird
| sie vor nationalen und europaischen Gerichten kaum Bestand
| haben.
|
| Translated (by myself): > This law is a short term solution
| for three years. The commission promised a permanent solution
| to combat child abuse before the summer break. Now, this will
| take until September or October. Thus, I await a much better
| proposal. The long term solution must have at least the same
| guarantees for data protection as the short term solution. It
| [the long term solution] must have solutions for
| purposeful/targeted ("gezielt") scanning of private
| communication, otherwise it will not hold up in front of
| national or European courts.
|
| So maybe things do not change that much right now.
|
| But back to [1], I am especially curious about article 3(e):
| > the provider annually publishes a report on its related
| processing, including on the type and volumes of data
| processed, number of cases identified, measures applied to
| select and improve key indicators, numbers and ratios of
| errors (false positives) of the different technologies
| deployed, measures applied to limit the error rate and the
| error rate achieved, the retention policy and the data
| protection safeguards applied
|
| Do you know if and where such statistics are published?
| (today?)
|
| [2]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2021
| -07-...
| aktuel wrote:
| Does anyone have a link to details about who voted how?
| bwindels wrote:
| I'm looking as well, so far have only found
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/votingList/(A9-0258_2...
| which doesn't say much.
| perihelions wrote:
| Just to clarify a point for discussion: this is already the law
| in the USA, and always has been [0]. European privacy law
| formerly prohibited private entities from reading personal
| communications, and handing them over warrantlessly to
| governments (as I understand it (?)); but this was never a thing
| in the US.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
| cvwright wrote:
| This makes the EU look pretty hypocritical for striking down
| the "Privacy Shield" agreement that they had with the US for
| GDPR.
|
| In fact, I have to wonder if this will put that ruling in
| danger of being overturned now?
|
| (And how much do you want to bet that the lawyers at Facebook
| are gearing up for that very fight right now?)
| aksss wrote:
| From that source:
|
| In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime
| Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic
| Communications Privacy Act which included an updated "Wiretap
| Act" and _also extended Fourth Amendment-like protections to
| electronic communications in Title II of the Electronic
| Communications Privacy Act, known as the Stored Communications
| Act_.
|
| In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled
| _warrants are needed for gathering cell phone tracking
| information_ , remarking that cell phones are almost a "feature
| of human anatomy", "when the Government tracks the location of
| a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it
| had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user". and that
|
| [cell-site location information] provides officers with "an
| all-encompassing record of the holder's whereabouts" and
| "provides an intimate window into a person's life, revealing
| not only [an individual's] particular movements, but through
| them [their] familial, political, professional, religious, and
| sexual associations."[5]
|
| AND
|
| From https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-
| wa...
|
| Are there Any Laws that Protect Your Email Privacy?
|
| Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), _police
| can access emails without a warrant if the emails are stored in
| the cloud and at least 180 days old_. However, this law is
| outdated and lawmakers are attempting to pass the E-mail
| Privacy Act. This would update the ECPA by requiring warrants
| for all email searches. At the moment, in July 2018, the ECPA
| has yet to pass.
|
| _E-mails that are in remote storage and opened or older than
| 180 days do not require a warrant. Instead, the police only
| need to obtain an administrative subpoena._ Administrative
| subpoenas are issued by federal agencies without any approval
| by a judge, so they are much easier to obtain.
|
| So.. run your own email server in your basement if you're
| concerned (which would require a warrant). Or try end-to-end
| encryption solutions.
| perihelions wrote:
| Think you're glossing over the distinction between
| _compelling_ material (by warrant, subpoena, &c.) -- what
| the Fourth Amendment covers -- and private entities
| _voluntarily giving_ the government material that third
| parties have entrusted them. Nothing regulates the latter:
| that 's the third-party doctrine.
| aksss wrote:
| This is true.. not much to be done with the major providers
| are all in bed with the Feds. I mean, the telcos literally
| allow the Feds to port mirror all their traffic. End to end
| encryption on your own encrypted storage perhaps.
| geofft wrote:
| The people you're replying to aren't glossing over it, the
| posted article (and the comments predicting the end of the
| European tech industry) is glossing over it. "European
| Parliament approves mass surveillance" really means
| "European Parliament suspends portion of privacy law that
| prevents third parties from voluntarily monitoring
| information entrusted to them" - as they're able to do in
| the US.
|
| The European Parliament isn't (in this action, at least)
| compelling anyone to surveil anything.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is a bizarre distinction to make when the third
| party doctrine has resulted in mass surveillance in the
| US.
|
| > The European Parliament isn't (in this action, at
| least) compelling anyone to surveil anything.
|
| Why shoot down something that you're adding to the
| article? Who said the European Parliament was compelling
| anyone to do anything?
| pomian wrote:
| Those are great. Thanks for posting a very clear summary of
| two important points. It seems to be very hard to find and
| define on your own. Too bad they didn't make the same thing
| for credit card transactions, which are almost, and becoming
| more so, part of our anatomy. (Will the rules change if they
| are (injected chips, for instance.)
| yreg wrote:
| This reads like a hoax. Do we have other sources on it?
| alkonaut wrote:
| It does read extremely one-sided, as you'd expect from the pp.
| [deleted]
| ashtonkem wrote:
| You do have to wonder about the long term stability of a nominal
| democracy where 72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while
| 77% of their representatives vote for laws they emphatically do
| not want.
|
| Put more bluntly, is this even a democracy in anything other than
| the trappings?
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Its more complex than this. You cant put complex questions to
| simple referendum as a yes/no question (see brexit). Law making
| requires compromise and seeing the whole picture and its very
| easy to get people to say yes (or no) just depending on how you
| frame the question.
|
| Great example is maternity leave: amazing thing, exists across
| Europe for a length of 4 to 36 months. In some countries moms
| can take nearly three years off, and still get paid. Great in
| principle but after three years (or more with more kids) those
| moms basically have no chance to get a job in their field as
| their knowledge is outdated and they often end in precarious
| low wage low skill jobs. I'm 200% in favour of maternity leave,
| but if you set the incentives wrong you don't help families
| more - you just kick women out of the workforce. So how do you
| put a referendum on this? You need trial, expertise, analysis -
| not a simple 'do you want 12 or 36 months of paid maternity
| leave' as most voters don't understand the long term
| consequences.
| LanceH wrote:
| A discussion I've never really seen take place is, "Why does
| law enforcement have a (prominent) seat at the table for which
| laws should be passed?"
|
| We in the US continually hear from the FBI and other agencies
| how they need to abridge rights in order to be more effective.
| IMO, that really shouldn't be in their wheelhouse. They should
| be enforcing only laws that exist. Making new laws for their
| convenience should be none of their business. If they are
| hamstrung by some pesky civil rights, tough.
|
| I'm sure there may exist counterexamples, but I can't think of
| where an agency has advocated in favor of more personal
| protections.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Good point.
|
| Of course every kind of worker has his wishes to change
| law/rules for work. But the agencies are really good in
| pushing for new laws (and more work .. perpetum mobile).
| CameronNemo wrote:
| How is it not a democracy? It is representative, sure, but it
| is still more democratic than many other nominal democracies
| which do not even have proportional representation.
|
| Perhaps people just do not consider this an important issue,
| and do not factor it in to how they choose their
| representatives very much?
|
| What do you suggest as the alternative? Direct democracy?
| Anarchy?
|
| https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-su...
| [deleted]
| estaseuropano wrote:
| - this is not new, it only is an urgent law to enable
| continuation of current practices as a previous law ran out
|
| - this is temporary legislation limited to 3 years
|
| - hopefully we get some real dialogue on the final legislation
| Dah00n wrote:
| Well, they have a better voting track record than the US vis-a-
| vis citizens vs politicians, so I guess the answer world be No
| if the US is authoritarian but Yes if it is democratic.
| buran77 wrote:
| This is the misunderstood part of democracies as we have them
| now. The only democratic parts are the process of electing your
| representatives, and the decisions taken between the
| representatives. Of course that's still a (small) win, and
| there's the reasonable assumption that a representative will at
| least partially represent the interests of their voters. But in
| reality there's a massive disconnect between the principles of
| democracy and the implementation.
|
| We now get probably the narrowest interpretation that could
| still be considered a democratic process. The people have the
| power for the fraction of a second it takes to cast a vote,
| followed by years of absolutely no real power of any kind,
| beyond the vague "consultation", and no real obligation from
| their representatives to _represent_ the people.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| I find it interesting that "derogation" (my new word for the day)
| means both:
|
| * the act of officially stating that a law or rule no longer
| needs to be obeyed,
|
| and
|
| * the act of talking about or treating someone in a way that
| shows you do not respect him, her, or it,
|
| according to [0]. If the shoe fits, I guess?
|
| ---
|
| [0]:
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/derog...
| oblio wrote:
| It is also:
|
| > special permission not to obey a rule, law, etc.:
| BjoernKW wrote:
| That the European Parliament didn't spontaneously disappear in a
| massive vortex of cognitive dissonance can only mean that most
| MEPs either don't understand GDPR or this new law, maybe neither.
| akomtu wrote:
| I think it's the establishment, i.e. the old wealthy families who
| run things, are very concerned with the migrants crisis and the
| real possibility to lose control.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I'm partial to blaming the lizard people as, being lizard
| people, they don't have feelings.
| 8458e112e7b2 wrote:
| Lol. These "old wealthy families" caused the "migrant crisis"
| akomtu wrote:
| Because they needed cheap labour. Now they're scared this
| cheap labor will get out of their control.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| It already has gotten out of control, hundreds of thousands
| of people crossed the borders without any checks. There was
| also this bizarre case of a man now pre-crime style accused
| of terrorism, although the charges seem very questionable
| when you look into it:
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210525-german-
| soldie...
| ramtatatam wrote:
| Can somebody tell me if personally hosted email is subject to
| this bizarre law?
| gentleman11 wrote:
| This is what people mean when they say "turnkey surveillance
| states": you end up 1-3 laws away from almost instant total
| government surveillance of all citizen activity. The trillion
| dollar infrastructure was built by you and me for free from their
| POV (we paid them to do it with taxes), and now they can just say
| they want to use it
| mrtksn wrote:
| Access to all peoples communications is simply incredibly
| lucrative. If it is out there, and it is, those with interest
| in it will attempt to get it.
|
| If it's not done openly, will be done secretly(like in the USA
| as revealed by Wikileaks).
|
| Normally I support the position of political progress("We" and
| the politicians are not different subset of people, EU is not
| bunch of Belgians) instead of technological solutions. However,
| this time I think we need a technological solution.
|
| No matter who is in charge, the temptation is too big if the
| access is possible. They don't even have to have malicious
| intents, all kind of people's job will get much easier if they
| had access to the communications of others.
| exdsq wrote:
| So what do we do?
| hughrr wrote:
| Well you can do what we did in the UK: the non apathetic
| portion of propagandised society collectively decided to exit
| the EU backed by some dubious political and financial
| motives, immediately followed by slow deregulation and
| privatisation of everything while embracing corruption and
| nepotism.
|
| So you can live in a rising socialist surveillance dystopia
| or robocop style capitalist dystopia. It's political
| hysteresis and the only thing that reverses it is war.
| aembleton wrote:
| What has been privatised recently? Train operating
| companies have been nationalised, but I'm not aware of any
| privatisation taking place. There is talk of Channel 4 but
| that is it as far as I can tell.
| hughrr wrote:
| They haven't finished the deregulation bit yet. They need
| to do that so they can hide the funding streams and
| private market involvement. Watch this space.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| It will probably take another World War before people
| collectively remember why privacy even existed in the first
| place.
| adventured wrote:
| What would a world war have to do with reminding people of
| privacy?
|
| World War 2 gave China and Soviet Russia a new sense of
| privacy?
|
| WW2 made the US worse as a place in most regards, not
| better. That's what caused the US to build its military
| industrial complex, to install a massive standing global
| military, to primarily guard against the Europeans going on
| rampage again for the nth time (which was guaranteed to
| happen with the USSR very eager to conquer even more of
| Europe in the days post WW2).
|
| From WW2 the US got a dramatically expanded (and more
| intrusive) Federal Government, surveillence state and war
| machine, encouraged by Hoover's aggressive domestic actions
| and all the newly minted three letter agencies (CIA 1947,
| NSA 1952, NRO 1960, ATF 1972, DEA 1973).
|
| A third world war would make the governments even more
| paranoid, scared, and intrusive, not less.
|
| You wouldn't want to see what the involved governments
| would do to their people as a war involving the US, Russia,
| China, and various countries in Europe and Asia broke out.
| The stakes would be as high as they could possibly be,
| given the nuclear arsenals in existence now. Privacy would
| rapidly sink toward zero, and that conflict would be an
| extraodinary argument in favor of zero privacy (according
| to the governments): for no mistakes can be tolerated, the
| dangers are too high, no privacy can be afforded (they
| would claim).
| manmal wrote:
| It's a bit early to give up already.
| swiley wrote:
| Use GPG. Don't use smartphones, don't use any closed software
| (especially non-free OSes.)
|
| Vote.
| imiric wrote:
| Unfortunately that's a non-starter for most people who
| value utility over privacy. Education is key, but there's
| little interest in that as well.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| 99% of people don't care enough to do any of these things.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| With so many places in the world with flawed democracy by
| first past the post, it seems like voting is more or less
| irrelevant.
|
| The first thing that the digital revolution should have
| fixed was our variously flawed democratic systems. It might
| be the last thing.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Between having to use GPG or just accept Orwellian
| dystopia, the choice is... not easy
| klodolph wrote:
| GPG doesn't solve the problem of metadata surveillance. One
| of the major problems with technological solutions to
| privacy problems is that metadata surveillance is extremely
| useful to begin with, and it's hard to make communication
| anonymous.
| upofadown wrote:
| True but people with private communications don't usually
| need to hide their metadata. Who cares if they know you
| are communicating with your friends and family if they
| don't know you are complaining about the thin skinned
| government.
|
| Anonymity is an issue, but it is far from the most
| important issue.
| tored wrote:
| Pen and paper.
| haroldp wrote:
| If you send a letter, the USPO automatically takes and
| stores a picture of the envelope, and will show it to law
| enforcement upon request - no warrant required. Pen & paper
| has is a meta-data leak.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_Tr
| a...
| sib wrote:
| But you can mail letters without return addresses...
| gentleman11 wrote:
| I'm not sure what to do personally, but there are civil and
| digital rights organizations that have some ideas. I bet they
| could all use donations
| petercooper wrote:
| I wonder how this meshes with GDPR as this seems like a huge
| violation of it. Law enforcement being able to dig into messages
| with a warrant is one thing, but delegating responsibilities to
| platforms to look for crime is quite another.
| [deleted]
| agilob wrote:
| Which part of GDPR does it violate?
| progval wrote:
| 1. this seems to be misinformation, the author is the only
| source on the topic
|
| 2. it would probably be compatible with GDPR anyway. GDPR
| article 6, paragraph 1: "Processing shall be lawful only if and
| to the extent that at least one of the following applies [...]
| (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal
| obligation to which the controller is subject"
| mimsee wrote:
| Rules for thee but not for me.
| verst wrote:
| I'm seeing a lot of responses from fellow folks in the US that
| seem to imply this EU (proposed?) regulation is unprecedented in
| the US.
|
| Is that actually so?
| jude- wrote:
| Do they _want_ everyone to switch en masse to end-to-end
| encrypted communications? Because this is how you encourage that.
| trainsplanes wrote:
| The vast majority of people do not care. Politicians will say
| this is to stop pedophiles, and if you speak up against
| surveillance, you're labeled as a pedophile and ignored.
|
| Plus, let's be real, end to end encryption doesn't exist if
| you're using any sort of pre-built app. It's encrypted-looking
| to most people, but the people who matter always get back door
| access.
| pydry wrote:
| Don't care or don't perceive the threat clearly?
| vnchr wrote:
| Seems like the same legal body that made these laws would
| outlaw that activity.
| SllX wrote:
| Yeah, but how sustainable is the EU really, in the long term?
| I'm still convinced it will either dissolve or devolve into a
| rump organization within my lifetime.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Well, I'm assuming that's one of the things that total
| pervasive surveillance and control of communication is
| meant to address.
| SllX wrote:
| Seems like acting with that intent with this power is an
| easy way to accelerate the EU's own dissolution.
|
| The Warsaw Pact, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain across
| Europe and the Berlin Wall, as well as the communist
| surveillance States that still-living Europeans lived
| within and remember well enough was not that long ago.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| EU gets a lot of stick but deep below, the boring stuff
| keeps it together.
|
| Brexit showed just the enormous depth of high quality glue
| keeping all remaining countries together.
|
| So I don't think the EU will be collapsing any time soon,
| certainly not for rational reasons.
| filmfact wrote:
| You are right, the Stasi would be so proud of what Europe
| is about to become.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I'm not saying this is a good idea, only that it's not in
| the brink of falling apart. And I reckon this is the last
| thing that would break it. Farming subsidies or carbon
| credits if anything. Again, the boring stuff.
| SllX wrote:
| Yeah, but how much of that boring stuff requires the full
| matter of what the EU has become? That's why I could see
| a rump sticking around or getting folded into some other
| institutions, if full dissolution never quite happens.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Again, Brexit shows, imho, that you can't have the boring
| stuff without the tight integration. There are no duties
| because taxes are harmonised. There are no import/export
| controls because norms are identical pan-EU.
|
| The UK wanted to drop the tight integration and
| acceptance of common goals, but keep all the tax and
| trade benefits. But the logical hurdles turned out to be
| insurmountable. Want to sell fish tax-free? Well let us
| fish in your waters. Want to sell frictionless to our
| markets? Accept our standards. So what should the common
| ground be for digital services?
|
| Initiatives like this, good or bad, represent the EU's
| drive to combat big issues facing the world, and again
| need to be tackled for the EU to remain relevant; it
| can't just stick to subsidising farming, that is so
| 1950s.
|
| I spoke once to a senior economist (can't remember the
| name sadly) who made a good point: EU is often compared
| to national governments, and looks sluggish by
| comparison. But the real comparisons would be to other
| enormous bureaucracies: US federal government, China, UN
| etc. And when you make this comparison, it is in fact
| quite favourable for the EU. Basically, scaling is hard,
| and the EU is not bad at it.
| jollybean wrote:
| "Brexit shows, imho, that you can't have the boring stuff
| without the tight integration"
|
| This is definitely not true. There are tons of 0-tarrif
| trade agreements in this world, and even those without
| border checks for commercial goods - all without
| political integration.
|
| NAFTA/USMCA have been doing this for 35 years and it's
| very effective.
|
| Brexit doesn't show 'how good the EU is' it shows the
| opposite: that UK, Switzerland and Norway well get along
| quite well outside of the political body.
|
| The EEC was entirely uncontentious - everyone wants some
| version of that. No arguments from anyone there.
|
| But the argument that the 'Political Layer over the EEC,
| i.e. the EU, is necessary' might have some merit, but
| it's probably more complicated, and it might not even be
| true.
|
| The real comparison is no between EU/US/China - but
| between the EU and a more comprehensive version of the
| EEC - i.e. some kind of 'deep trade integration' but
| without a political body, and without an ECJ with 'Legal
| Supremacy'.
|
| This surveillance issue highlights one of those areas
| where I'm not so sure the EU would be perfectly ideal for
| supranational laws. Treaty-based regulation - for sure.
| But laws under ECJ Supremacy ... I'm not so sure. It's
| going to be interesting to see how this jives with the
| German Basic Law and their de-facto opt-out over
| constitutional issues.
| krona wrote:
| > Basically, scaling is hard, and the EU is not bad at
| it.
|
| It's not scaling economically though, is it?
| engineeringwoke wrote:
| What makes you say that? Mass media, especially English
| speaking mass media, have been EU polyannas since its
| inception. It's bad for their status quo.
| krona wrote:
| It's all stick, no carrot. Unsustainable.
| pcrh wrote:
| The EU has a lot of carrot for countries like Poland or
| Lithuania. Even longer term members such as Belgium, etc,
| that don't have such history with the Soviets know they
| are better off being in the EU than splintered.
| jollybean wrote:
| What is the 'carrot' for Spain, France, Italy that goes
| beyond what the EEC provided?
|
| Why would a 'really great trade agreement' not provide
| 'most, if not all of the carrot' with respect to economic
| upsides?
|
| Does the EU political apparatus an ECJ, i.e. beyond
| comprehensive trade agreements, provide carrots?
| zackees wrote:
| Protonmail is already compromised.
|
| You'll have to send coded messages with manual encryption if
| you want something secret.
| sneak wrote:
| I don't think that's true. Most people use Facebook Messenger
| or WhatsApp; privacy isn't really a selling point for the
| majority of people. "I've nothing to hide" is the common
| response.
| graeme wrote:
| Whatsapp is end to end encrypted.
| sneak wrote:
| The backups aren't. Same with iMessage. end-to-end has
| become a marketing buzzword, any large scale deployment
| gets backdoored (via either key or plaintext escrow) at the
| endpoints, to FISA/PRISM providers who have to turn it over
| to the state without a warrant.
|
| China has the same setup with providers in their country.
|
| WhatsApp and iMessage simply aren't private when the
| providers get ~100% of the plaintext transiting the service
| within 24 hours (immediately in the case of iMessage, as
| thanks to "Messages in iCloud" (cross-device sync) being on
| by default, the MIC sync key is escrowed to Apple in a
| non-e2e backup, permitting them to decrypt the sync traffic
| in realtime).
|
| Truly private, easily accessible, society-wide private
| communications are a threat to sovereignty, and governments
| know this, which is why even europe (leading the way on
| individual privacy and rights on this planet, in general)
| is reluctant to permit it. Same goes for truly censorship-
| resistant, easily accessible payment systems. They allow
| you to coordinate (private/uncensorable messaging) and pay
| for (uncensorable payments) an army outside of state
| prerogatives, in theory.
| graeme wrote:
| For the purposes of an eu law requiring facebook to scan
| messages, facebook can't scan icloud backups.
| sneak wrote:
| Any law that the EU can apply to Facebook to scan
| messages readable by Facebook that transit Facebook's
| service, the EU can apply to Apple to scan messages
| readable by Apple that transit Apple's service.
| tpush wrote:
| > [...] as thanks to "Messages in iCloud" (cross-device
| sync) being on by default [...]
|
| Messages in iCloud is off by default AFAIK.
| sneak wrote:
| It's not, but in the case of Messages in iCloud being
| off, the actual plaintext of the iMessages themselves is
| included in the (non-e2e) iCloud Backup (which I am 100%
| positive _is_ on by default).
|
| In the case of MIC being on, then the MIC sync key is
| included in the (again, non-e2e) iCloud Backup.
|
| MIC on = MIC sync key escrow via iCloud Backup (realtime
| iMessage content decrypt)
|
| MIC off = iMessage plaintext escrow via iCloud backup
| (nightly)
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-
| exclusiv...
|
| Before you mention "but you can turn off iCloud Backup!":
| these default settings affect all of your conversation
| partners, too, so even if you disable iCloud Backup, it's
| likely that your messages are still getting escrowed from
| the devices of the people you talk to.
| BelenusMordred wrote:
| The metadata hosted on Facebook's servers is worth more
| than the actual content.
| cvwright wrote:
| People keep repeating this trope about metadata being
| worth more than content. Where does this come from?
|
| I can understand that metadata is valuable -- of course
| it is. You can learn a lot from metadata. But _more
| valuable than the actual content_? Give me a break.
|
| Something can be bad without being literally the worst
| thing ever. Pointless exaggeration like this does nothing
| for the cause of privacy.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| I think it's important to consider scale when discussing
| metadata vs raw content
|
| Getting high precision is difficult when done on "all
| content", especially considering the multitude of
| languages and dialects in Europe. At a certain point,
| more data does not result in better output, sometimes
| it's actually detrimental
|
| The patterns that arise from metadata are much more
| generalisable and there's less of it, so it's easier to
| search through
| sergimansilla wrote:
| It mentions in the article that even apps like Signal would
| have to install backdoors that they can use.
| swiley wrote:
| Crypto is just about worthless without personal computing.
| netr0ute wrote:
| That can't happen with open-source, whether it's "free" or
| not.
| 0xy wrote:
| That's absolutely not true, since Google is now signing app
| distributions and can easily swap them out. Additionally,
| there's no guarantee that Signal is shipping the same code
| to the app stores.
| jtmarmon wrote:
| it can if you don't compile the source yourself, a la the
| app store
| 7373737373 wrote:
| That's not how this works in practice
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| While true, an adversarial government can pass new laws to
| restrict access or installation of software it deems
| dangerous. Politicians, uh, find a way.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Open _source_. That means that they 'd have to either
| prevent the downloading of the source, prevent it
| compiling, or prevent running something that you compiled
| on your own box. Any of those three seems to be
| guaranteeing that Europe will not have any leading role
| in computers for the foreseeable future. Any of those
| three _also_ seems almost impossible to enforce.
| swiley wrote:
| There's no way to build apps locally on most smartphones
| which are the majority of end user devices.
|
| Open source practically died with personal computers.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| When did personal computers die? Most desktops and
| laptops are fairly open and although android phones are
| not as open you can build software on your laptop/desktop
| for usage on your phone.
|
| You could also use something like pinephone or librem.
| You wont have access to a lot of android tech but the
| most important functionality. A web browser, sending sms,
| email, making calls all work.
| netr0ute wrote:
| In the US, forcibly including certain code in your
| program would be a 1st amendment violation.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I can envision all sorts of workarounds to this
| constitutional issue. And, Congress does this sort of
| thing all the time.
| _Wintermute wrote:
| It wasn't that long ago that encryption was banned in
| France.
| sneak wrote:
| The whole stack needs to be open source and user
| modifiable, though. Signal is open source, but if Apple is
| one day compelled to ban non-backdoored versions from the
| App Store, nobody can use it on an iPhone.
| oblio wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/538/
| goodpoint wrote:
| xkcd is a just a comic - please don't make it a
| conversation killer.
| oblio wrote:
| Well, to revive this conversation.
|
| States have access to "a monopoly of legitimate
| violence". We grant them that in order for them to be
| able to keep the peace, you know, law and order.
|
| Everything else can be boiled down to this. No matter how
| many bits of encryption keys are used, someone with a
| chloroform infused rag and a wrench can visit any of us
| at any moment. And it's actually part of what we,
| collectively, as citizens, have granted as a power to the
| state.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I might be too influenced with Brazil I watched recently,
| but the monopoly on necessary violence is not without
| restrictions ( which is why there is an outcry when the
| outer bands are pushed too far ). Granted, the fact is
| that the bands are now hidden from public view only to
| resurface when a whistleblower lets the population know.
| Still, basic principle remains. There are limits to
| violence goverment can legitimately engage in.
| netr0ute wrote:
| > someone with a chloroform infused rag and a wrench can
| visit any of us at any moment
|
| That's where engineering comes into play, maybe materials
| science to build suitable systems to defend against such
| physical attacks. And, you can't just ban engineering.
| dogecoinbase wrote:
| Signal didn't publish the source for their server-side from
| 20 April 2020 to 6 April 2021 while they secretly added a
| cryptocurrency payment system. Open source is only open if
| the source is available (and yes -- if their end-to-end
| encryption system is working properly than even a notional
| malicious server would not be able to intercept message
| contents, but could of course provide metadata, and also
| you have no way of verifying that the app you install via
| whichever app store you install Signal from was built from
| any given source).
| romesmoke wrote:
| To be precise, the article says that apps like Signal are to
| be the target of a follow-up regulation scheduled for coming
| September. It also emphasizes citizens' strong opposition to
| this prospect.
|
| Fingers crossed, but is it enough? What can we do to prevent
| this sh*tload?
| teawrecks wrote:
| If I hand something in plaintext to another private party, I
| already assumed they are legally within their rights to read
| it. It's on me to encrypt if I don't want it read.
| dekrg wrote:
| More end to end encryption use only means more laws banning
| encryption faster.
|
| Or do you really think that when for example DoH gains wider
| adoption all the countries using DNS based blocking will go "Oh
| well guess the techies got us".
| dv_dt wrote:
| Which is ironically self defeating after major multiple
| security product breaches. Laws banning encryption or
| requiring backdoors as well as the practice of secret court
| warrants discourage fundamental investment in strong
| encryption products and standards.
| yarg wrote:
| Good luck with that - the genie's out of the bottle.
|
| End to end encryption is vital to the operations of modern
| businesses, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Counterpoint: China does modern business just fine.
| coding123 wrote:
| You'd be surprised then how fast things bend and eventually
| break under government rule.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Agreed. Most people, when confronted with the choice of
| jail vs. doing what they are told, will do what they are
| told.
| koolba wrote:
| The world has a poor history on banning the application of
| math.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| _laughs in Mandarin_
|
| Well, I shouldn't do that. Suffice to say, it's simply a
| fact that China bans VPNs, and pretty much everyone goes
| along with it. People fear jail.
|
| It's hard (but not impossible) to imagine Europe and the US
| doing that. NordVPN is practically a household name, at
| least on YouTube.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| You think Europe will allow end-to-end for much longer?
| Dah00n wrote:
| Yes. Saying otherwise is hyperbolic. The European Commission
| uses and recommends Signal themselves.
|
| https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-
| observato...
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > ...has already announced a follow-up regulation to make
| chat control mandatory for all email and messaging
| providers. Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger
| services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to
| install a backdoor.
|
| It's easy to recommend "end-to-end" when you're about to
| force a backdoor into it.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >It's easy to recommend "end-to-end" when you're about to
| force a backdoor into it.
|
| I'm not surprised that HN readers think politicians are
| all so dumb that they recommend their own staff use
| Signal and then recommend to break Signal. This kind of
| news pop up all the time and in almost all instances it
| turns out it isn't what is actually happening. Discussing
| it on HN -especially when it is the EU, Russia or China-
| is a complete waste of time as almost every single
| comment is low effort or trolling. We all know that the
| EU won't have backdoored Signal any more today than the
| next ten times this gets discussed on HN. It's all smoke
| and mirrors.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > We all know that the EU won't have backdoored Signal
| any more today than the next ten times this gets
| discussed on HN. It's all smoke and mirrors.
|
| How can you say that it's not only the stated goal but
| they have been making real progress towards it?
| [deleted]
| agilob wrote:
| In recent months they also promised to strengthen law and
| access to privacy and anonymity, make it a human right.
| Talk is cheap.
| beders wrote:
| Doesn't help if you don't control the ends of the end-to-end
| part. We don't control iOS nor Android on most devices.
|
| In general this holds: There's no privacy on the internet.
| fsflover wrote:
| If you care about it, switch to Librem 5 or Pinephone.
| rrix2 wrote:
| Neither of these can access the financial services provided
| by my bank nor the infrastructure provided by my city
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| This is a joke, right? right??
| cachvico wrote:
| Yes; or satire, or propaganda.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc...
|
| .pdf:
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
|
| The votes seem to be here (page 5):
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0...
|
| I suppose this will only show up on sites like
| https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/eu/abstimmungen or
| https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-european-parliament-latest...
| later...
| sprafa wrote:
| this is the only place where this can be found. Would love to
| know more from someone perhaps a little bit less involved.
| BjoernKW wrote:
| I've just found another source corroborating this:
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/new-eu...
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| I couldn't find anything else either: When I do a shallow
| google search for "EU mass surveillance", I find articles
| referring to a loophole in AI rules for mass surveillance and
| some articles stating that mass surveillance can only be for
| national security - and the most recent is in April.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails
| actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that
| I see myself switching after 15 years and 6 Gmail accounts but if
| I am to I'd rather know who I'd use.
|
| And no I won't risk setting it up myself and risk missing on some
| portion of my emails like I've had happen at workplaces before
| we'd sigh and switch to Google.
|
| For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what
| the best option is for email.
| soziawa wrote:
| > For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure
| what the best option is for email.
|
| Something that doesn't store the chats in a decryptable form on
| their servers is probably preferrable. So Telegram out and
| Signal, Threema or WhatsApp in.
| sorenjan wrote:
| Telegram supports E2E encrypted secret chats.
|
| https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Which noone uses. Even Facebook Messenger supports "secret
| chats". Telegram is not secure.
| eitland wrote:
| Friendly reminder that WhatsApp is far out: it uploads all
| data unencrypted to at least one cloud if on of the
| participants have backups enabled.
|
| So Signal, Matrix or possible Threema (I don't know it) is
| in.
|
| Personally though, I use Telegram and I drive an ordinary
| car, not an armored one.
| nybble41 wrote:
| No matter which chat service you use, any recipient could
| potentially upload the unencrypted data to a cloud backup
| service. If you don't trust the intended recipients with
| the data then you shouldn't share it with them in the first
| place.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The problem with email is that it's federated; any email is as
| secure as the least secure mail server it's being sent from or
| two. Even if you use something super duper secure in a polity
| that respects privacy, it does you no good if you send an email
| to Gmail who immediately hands it over to one or more
| government bodies.
| jbuhbjlnjbn wrote:
| There is an obvious solution, do not send emails to gmail
| addresses.
| aembleton wrote:
| ... or to domains that use gmail.
|
| Possible to find out using dig but not as simple as
| avoiding gmail addresses.
| toast0 wrote:
| Only if the domain uses google's MX as the public facing
| MX. If it delivers to an intermediate MX for filtering or
| archiving or ??? and then redelivers to google, it's not
| visible.
|
| Of course, if you don't set the public MX to google,
| blackberry phones won't use the right SMTP for outgoing
| mail, and then mail will fail DMARC, because you can't
| actually configure the SMTP server anyway. Hope they
| fixed that in BB10, before they stopped selling phones.
| vifon wrote:
| If you want your email reliably encrypted, encrypt it yourself.
| GPG works the same regardless of the provider.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Only if you assume that the only valuable thing in your
| communications is the content, which is simply not true.
| Metadata, who is speaking to whom and when, is incredibly
| valuable as a surveillance tool.
| wiz21c wrote:
| and I guess that using GPG will instantly flag you as suspect
| :-(
| rapnie wrote:
| Would Switzerland need to comply with this regulation? Thinking
| of e.g. ProtonMail for their EU customers.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Something I'm wondering is how this will affect Europe's ability
| to attract and retain top tier talent.
|
| Europe already seems to be losing to the US. Will this accelerate
| this brain drain or slow it? [0]
|
| [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-
| br...
| agilob wrote:
| The same law already exists in US and Australia
| adventured wrote:
| Can you point out the specific same law that already exists
| in the US?
|
| What exists in the US is primarily the absence of restrictive
| laws. Private companies can - for the most part - freely scan
| your communications/data that go across their service
| depending on the terms of use/privacy they set.
|
| What the EU is doing is quite different from the US approach.
| They're starting out from a supposed perch of claiming that
| they very strongly believe in privacy rights, and then
| they're violating that to an almost comical degree. The
| difference is one of remarkable hypocrisy.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Australia has a pretty bad drain to the US.
| balozi wrote:
| Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.
| adventured wrote:
| Well it may not be for the British, they're not going to get
| less mass surveillance due to Brexit. However for some
| countries that could choose to leave the EU due to totalitarian
| laws like this, it may be a benefit, if they choose to pursue a
| privacy-focused path.
|
| Which are the most privacy-focused nations in the EU that might
| leave over a law like this?
| estaseuropano wrote:
| This is such an uninformed comment. By virtue of the eu legal
| process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of
| it, like all other EU countries. Anything else you hear is
| spin. Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a
| temporary law that comes in as another law ran out, and the
| aim is to have a more thorough piece of legislation on the
| books in 3 years. For the record, UK has much worse laws
| already on the books, as do the US or Australia.
| adventured wrote:
| Saying it's uninformed doesn't make it so, nice try at
| front-loading some argument from intimidation though.
|
| > For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the
| books, as do the US or Australia.
|
| First of all, who said that the US or UK didn't? That's
| misdirection. This story is about the EU. What I posited,
| is member states leaving the EU, those that are heavily
| concerned about privacy rights. What would that have to do
| with the US laws?
|
| > Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a
| temporary law that comes in as another law ran out
|
| A temporary mass surveillance bill. Yeah right. You were
| saying something about uninformed.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Sorry but please read the politico article posted a dozen
| times in this discussion. It is less agenda driven and
| wuotd clearly spells out this is just a law to allow
| providers to do it, not an obligation. In fact that
| provision existed before but was running out, thus this
| temporary law.
|
| As regards the brexit comment, you are right my writing
| was unnecessarily harsh but you missed the main point:
|
| > By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists
| because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU
| countries.
|
| The history of much EU bashing is that national
| governments vote YES in Brussels then turn around and say
| nationally 'really sorry we are obliged to implement this
| EU law' -- the very law they could have vetoed if they
| had wanted to. This is one of the basics of EU lawmaking
| which the previous commenter clearly was ignorant of.
| DaedPsyker wrote:
| How is it misdirection? The comment said maybe the
| brexiteers were right, so why would leaving for the
| purpose of privacy benefit when UK's own laws go beyond
| the EU? The answer isn't brexit it's changing your own
| laws in that case.
| [deleted]
| hirundo wrote:
| I am proud to live in a country that is not doing this. Openly.
| Yet. At least now they have to build a parallel construction to
| prosecute you for whatever they find, which takes some effort.
| Yay team.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Sounds like the US when you mention parallel construction but
| since the laws are way way worse than this one in the states
| I'm guessing it is somewhere else?
| 8458e112e7b2 wrote:
| Must be Trump's fault
| linspace wrote:
| It seems then the worst from both worlds: accept cookies popups
| and GDPR bureaucracy with mass surveillance.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| It's becoming scary how dangerous legislation is passed under the
| guise of protecting against "child exploitation". It's basically
| political suicide for politicians to vote against it (since the
| public cannot understand the nuance).
| bwindels wrote:
| Up to people who do understand it to expose the ones voting for
| it.
| hughrr wrote:
| Well bye bye European tech industry. Why the hell would anyone
| want to do business with such a risk in place?
| BjoernKW wrote:
| It's not like the EU so far has been home to a significant tech
| industry anyway.
|
| With GDPR, a notoriously convoluted set of rules and
| regulations that fails to achieve what it set out to, yet at
| the same time pesters SMEs while allowing large corporations
| with legal departments to continue to do as they please in
| terms of privacy, the EU has made sure it stays that way.
|
| Laws like this one are just the icing on the cake that is the
| fundamental misunderstanding by most MEPs of how technology and
| the technology business works, not to mention the very real
| downsides such laws have regarding privacy.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Whats convoluted about GDPR?
| elevenoh wrote:
| I'm not in the EU, but I'd exit any jurisdiction that
| implements this.
| Goety wrote:
| The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce. Notice
| how they chopped up the UK during Brexit.
|
| EU adopting this measure means the enforcement will likely be
| corrupt and impossible to enforce standards.
| oblio wrote:
| > The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce.
|
| Unprecedented compared to who? Every sovereign state has more
| control than the EU does: US, China, etc.
|
| > Notice how they chopped up the UK during Brexit.
|
| How did the EU chop up the UK?
| throwaways885 wrote:
| I believe GP is referring to the EU 'forcing' the UK to put
| a border between Britain and Northern Ireland, because the
| EU wanted a hard border _somewhere_ and wouldn 't budge on
| that.
| jlokier wrote:
| Well, the UK wanted Northern Irelend to benefit from a
| have-your-cake-and-eat-it semi-membership of the EU,
| while _actively_ denying that to the rest of their own
| people elsewhere in the UK.
|
| The EU have offered many opportunities for the UK to
| harmonise with the EU on many issues, while continuing
| with Brexit. For the most part, UK rejected repeated
| offers that would grant UK people and businesses more
| rights.
|
| For example, the rights of British people to freely
| travel in EU countries could have been kept, but the UK
| said we don't want our people to have that, as the price
| of mirroring it by allowing EU citizens the ability to
| travel in the UK is too high.
|
| EU offered to let students from the UK travel through EU
| under the Erasmus scheme. UK said no.
|
| EU offered a customs union, where standards were more
| harmonised and the would need to be far fewer checks at
| borders. That would have been far cheaper for every
| business in the UK that sells into the EU. UK rejected
| that. UK actively wants to diverge from EU standards
| (e.g. for things like food). It shouldn't be surprising
| that EU will protect businesses that conform to those
| standards over those seeking to undermine them.
|
| Businesses in Northern Ireland currently have
| advantageous access to the EU in ways no other part of
| the UK does. I don't mean the physical access to Ireland,
| I mean administrative access to the EU markets. You can
| see it in tax and import/export forms. There are
| currently reasons to set up businesses in Northern
| Irelend to get that foot-in-both-worlds advantage.
|
| A lot of businesses in the UK mainland would love to have
| the same rights as businesses in Northern Ireland.
| Especially those in Scotland who didn't vote to leave
| anyway, and see it as an England-imposed harm on them.
|
| What would you expect should happen, that UK should be
| allowed to use Nothern Ireland as backdoor to send
| unchecked goods to the EU, imported from say the USA and
| Australia and re-exported into the whole EU market with
| no border checks anywhere?
| throwaways885 wrote:
| > What would you expect should happen, that UK should be
| allowed to use Nothern Ireland as backdoor to send
| unchecked goods to the EU, imported from say the USA and
| Australia and re-exported into the whole EU market with
| no border checks anywhere?
|
| Of course not. That's exactly GGP's point I was trying to
| prove.
|
| > The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce.
|
| And I agree with it.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| But the issue was not EU control, rather the Ireland
| situation. The situation _due solely to brexit_ required
| checks somewhere. Do you want new riots and civil war due
| to checks within Ireland? Should Ireland accept to
| effectively leave the common market and all its benefits
| just so there 's no check between UK and Northern
| Ireland? Or this option.
|
| The UK killed all other scenarios by insisting that it
| wants to freely deviate from everything - if it had gone
| the Norway route or just stayed in the Union no such
| checks would be needed.
|
| Brexit was a slim non-binding referendum run ammock for
| party-internal politics of the Tories. Absurd from start
| to finish and now you want to blame the EU for the
| consequences?
| throwaways885 wrote:
| > Brexit was a slim non-binding referendum run ammock for
| party-internal politics of the Tories. Absurd from start
| to finish and now you want to blame the EU for the
| consequences?
|
| I'm not saying that I agree with how things have turned
| out, nor am I blaming the EU, rather, just pointing out
| that they do have much control over global commerce.
|
| And this _is_ anecdotal evidence of that.
|
| The EU could've had an internal border within it's own
| market, but that wasn't an option because they didn't
| want Ireland to be cut off. Both the EU and UK had the
| same desire, but the EU had the upper hand due to their
| economic size and control.
| jlokier wrote:
| > The EU could've had an internal border within it's own
| market, but that wasn't an option because they didn't
| want Ireland to be cut off.
|
| That's not an EU decision as you're suggesting there.
|
| Ireland isn't some vassal state. It's an equal partner.
|
| _Ireland itself_ doesn 't want to cut Ireland off from
| the EU.
|
| It's not for the EU to decide something like that. It's
| an Ireland decision, and in fact the power to do so
| resides with Ireland.
|
| If Ireland had wanted to align with the UK and separate
| from the EU, they could have, and they still have the
| power to do so. Of course they don't want to, why would
| they. They've benefited enormously from EU membership,
| and one of those benefits now is that the EU often
| protects the interests of Ireland - as determined by
| Ireland - in negotiations with the UK.
|
| It is important to remember that the EU is not actually a
| top down system, even though it can seem that way. Any
| member country is free to leave simply by giving notice,
| and cease to partake of the benefits of membership. The
| EU's laws are clear on this.
| oblio wrote:
| You have it the other way around. Brexit was FOR a hard
| border. One that would keep the EU out.
|
| But the central British government, which does not seem
| to care much about their Northern Irish citizens, either
| forgot or just didn't care at all, about the fact that
| Northern Ireland is in limbo, stuck between Ireland and
| the UK. So any kind of EU - UK split would have reopened
| old wounds.
|
| Wounds which actually the EU helped heal, back in 1998.
| Goety wrote:
| The EU is not a sovereign state.
|
| The EU chopped up UK business marketshare, business
| leadership, professional lives for little more than a gram
| of power.
|
| I feel like it is necessary to point out the similarities
| between the CCP and European Parliament.
|
| >72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while 77% of
| their representatives vote for laws they emphatically do
| not want
| oblio wrote:
| > The EU is not a sovereign state.
|
| It represents sovereign states.
|
| > The EU chopped up UK business marketshare, business
| leadership, professional lives for little more than a
| gram of power.
|
| How, exactly?
|
| > I feel like it is necessary to point out the
| similarities between the CCP and European Parliament.
|
| Please expand on this.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| The EU is intragovernmental, not intergovernmental. It is
| less than a sovereign state and more than just a
| representative Union.
| Goety wrote:
| >It represents sovereign states.
|
| not in every case.
|
| >How, exactly?
|
| There are a variety of good articles out there should you
| choose to examine the subject. I'll concede the point
| because I dont have time.
|
| >Please expand on this.
|
| This is seemingly a very unpopular law.
|
| The EP's support from citizens in the eurozone is dubious
| at best
| Glawen wrote:
| Brexit is now the EU's fault, right.
| Goety wrote:
| The EU's behavior during Brexit is at the very least
| suspect.
| hughrr wrote:
| Yes I agree. However neither side left with their dignity
| intact if you ask me. It was depressing to watch and the
| media circus around it was a train wreck.
| Goety wrote:
| The media circus was definitely not unbiased. It is kind
| of odd how citizens in the EU regard it as a 'victory'
| gman83 wrote:
| Wait, this is something that American and Chinese companies do
| on a regular basis, but when European companies do it it would
| mean the end of the industry? I'm certainly not in favour of
| this, but I don't follow your logic.
| hughrr wrote:
| The point is really that European technology industry needs
| some differentiating characteristic to succeed. It is quite
| far behind both the American and Chinese side of things. The
| EU has promoted privacy and human rights first which was a
| very good differentiator but has instantly shot that entire
| concept down.
|
| So the question on the table now is if there is no
| differentiating factor, do we go with the established US
| company or the new EU company when a product has to be
| selected?
|
| It's not going to be the EU company.
| alkonaut wrote:
| The situation even _after_ this, is worse in the US, correct?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The US is not (so far as we know) _commanding_ Signal to
| install a backdoor.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Nor is the EU as far as we know
| sillyquiet wrote:
| I mean not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I am pretty convinced
| they and other gov orgs (US, UK) are probably doing it already
| if I had to guess.
|
| This makes the stuff they find legally useable for evidence I
| guess.
| akomtu wrote:
| Also to normalize "black boxes" that are run by private
| companies to monitor thaffic.
| chacham15 wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > According to police data, in the vast majority of cases,
| innocent citizens come under suspicion of having committed an
| offence due to unreliable processes
|
| With this being said, what is the rationale for this?
|
| Its worth noting however, that the current legislation "allow[s]
| providers of e-mail and messaging services to automatically
| search all personal messages of each citizen for presumed suspect
| content and report suspected cases to the police" but does not
| mandate it yet.
| VortexDream wrote:
| This sounds insane. Everybody that voted for this needs to lose
| their seat.
| josefx wrote:
| It is a "think of the children" law, the last time the European
| Commission pushed a law under that reasoning it turned out they
| were targeting mainly political activists. Back then the super
| secret list of child porn sites they cited as impossible to
| take down through sane means contained two things: child porn
| sites that were taken down within 24 hours of the list becoming
| public and the sites of political activists. There is no way in
| hell any of the politicians that voted yes on this law thought
| of children when they did, at least not in a socially
| acceptable way.
| bwindels wrote:
| do you have a source for this?
| xunn0026 wrote:
| The good thing about this is that within a decade there will be
| no more corruption, no more forced prostitution, no more
| corporate abuse. It will be utopia.
| givinguflac wrote:
| I'm genuinely curious how you think that will come to pass. All
| those things existed before the internet and will continue to
| do so after this. Is there a missing /s?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Yes, I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. Can't prove it, but
| I'm still pretty sure...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-06 23:00 UTC)