Well bye bye European tech industry. Why the hell would anyone want to do business with such a risk in place?
The situation even after this, is worse in the US, correct?
The US is not (so far as we know) commanding Signal to install a backdoor.
European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
211–220 of 434 posts
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> 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.
The EU is intragovernmental, not intergovernmental. It is less than a sovereign state and more than just a representative Union.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#213Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can't happen with open-source, whether it's "free" or not.
While true, an adversarial government can pass new laws to restrict access or installation of software it deems dangerous. Politicians, uh, find a way.
It wasn't that long ago that encryption was banned in France.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#215This sounds insane. Everybody that voted for this needs to lose their seat.
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…
do you have a source for this?
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an obvious solution, do not send emails to gmail addresses.
... or to domains that use gmail. Possible to find out using dig but not as simple as avoiding gmail addresses.
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.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#217The 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.
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?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. Can't prove it, but I'm still pretty sure...
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#218This would also include any non EU citizens communications with an EU citizen. Also you might be an EU citizen without realising (by descent)
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.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 director…
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.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
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.