[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)