Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need for decryption. If you want to send things to Facebook Messenger, you can just send it to that service directly.
The topic is e2ee.
Nobody said the encrypted messages should be readable. /s
EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
231–240 of 351 posts
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR had consequences that were both wider and wilder than even its most aggressive critics predicted at the time, such as making it illegal for the banking system to continue using their existing EBCDIC-based systems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986735 The HN discussion was also full of comments about how the bank should've changed its systems already because it had ample time to come into compliance…
That's a wild edge case. And yes, a bank or whoever should be able to note your real name. It's the banks' problem for using obsolete things, not a GDPR problem.
Your wild edge case is someone else's life and living. People who love controlling other people (like the government and those who support it) never seem to understand that.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
lots of confusion in this comment. > Will it be voted for in European Parliament and if yes, when? the European Parliament only votes on a text. It cannot take decisions by itself. it can only present a voted upon text to the EU Council. and even then it's not a given it will become a directive. > And if it's adopted as a law There is no such thing as a "law" in the European Union. (Simplified) The EU has directives…
> lots of confusion in this comment. That's why I'm asking these questions. I still don't quite understand on which stage this initiative is at the moment and how long until it is enforced.
One thing is the formal process, another the practical one. It's like nominating a new UK Prime Minister: nominally it's the Queen doing something, in practice it's parliamentarians agreeing on a name through some sort of meeting of leaders.
The formal process of EU approval for directives and regulations resulted in certain practical norms. Basically, representatives for the three main organs (EUParliament, EUCouncil - i.e. national ministers - and EUCommission) sooner or later have to sit down and bang together a compromise on texts put forward by one or more of them. This is where we are today, this is what's been reported - that step has been completed.
Now the text gets put through the formal process, and it should be guaranteed to pass (bar surprising developments or upsets, like a country switching government and hence reneging on their position or EUParliament being particularly angry about specific bits of the text).
In terms of speed of approval this can be as short as a week, for the urgent stuff, but this will probably take a bit more as lobbyists will now go in overdrive trying to delay the cut-off enforcement dates that the text will contain.
In terms of distance from enforcement, this sort of world-changing rule typically gets put into force on 1 January of some future year. I reckon 1 January 2023 looks good, but we'll have to see the actual text to know for sure.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to understand how this is affecting you. Do you think that the existence of other App-Stores is reducing the quality of the apps in the Apple-Store?
Yes it will once it happens on iOS. Large companies like Facebook (not picking on Meta, just an easy example) really don’t want to follow Apple’s privacy guidelines, don’t want to ask users for permission to track their location, and don’t want to tell users what info they gather and how it’s used. Once Apple has to allow third-party app stores, many major software companies will either create their own App Store (gr…
Yep, much of this experiment already happened: Android, Windows, etc. If it is so easy / steady-state to have both experiences simultaneously on one platform, why didn't it happen on either of those two? It will absolutely devolve into the lowest denominator.
And that's why I choose not to be on Android.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#235> Parliament also succeeded in convincing the Council of interoperability requirements for messaging services, meaning outfits such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or iMessage will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms. For group chats, this requirement will be rolled out over a period of four years. This would be great. I remember using pidgin back in the day and it was really convenient…
Pidgin is still there, still works and supports modern chat platforms too, via plugins: https://pidgin.im/plugins/ Of course, some platforms ban you for using alternate clients.
Also with offTheRecord Messaging for encryption.
I am really loving this news, i was able to convince some of my old icq contacts back then to switch to jabber this way. And why wouldnt they if its all the same interface?
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the same thought. Apple makes great hardware and the main thing that was holding me back from getting one was their heavy handed approach on what applications I am allowed to install on my device and from what source. If this works I would probably go for it.
I’m the opposite. I buy an iPhone specifically because I want a locked-down device. World is about to get a little worse on this front.
> World is about to get a little worse on this front.
I think you underestimate the talent at Apple. The reason things are locked down isn't just that it makes them secure, spam free, etc. That's true of course, but it's not the only way to do it. It is however, the easiest way and in absence of external force, there is little reason to complicate it.
If EU succeeds in forcing Apple to open somethings up, then the brilliant folks at Apple will rise to the challenge and will innovate to either keep the quality as is or even make things better.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, i don't think this was thought out, or at least i haven't read anything on this subject. how does the draft text deal with cryptography?
Something like this can't really make end to end encryption interoperable. There will be no encryption at the transitions between systems. Clients would have to use something that can work over arbitrary textual channels like OTR or PGP.
No idea why this was downvoted. OTR is the correct answer here.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a wild edge case. And yes, a bank or whoever should be able to note your real name. It's the banks' problem for using obsolete things, not a GDPR problem.
Your wild edge case is someone else's life and living. People who love controlling other people (like the government and those who support it) never seem to understand that.
"the government" lol
> Your wild edge case is someone else's life and living.
Yes, the person whose name is mangled by a shitty bank's IT systems. Or the people who can see what a shitty data vacuuming company has on them( that now has to ask for consent beforehand).
Regulations are there to protect people like that, not just for fun.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose. The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it. For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?
30% fees are not immoral. You may not like them, but that's very far from the same thing. A moral question would be "how much should governments control voluntary interactions between customers, platforms and products?" The immoral answer might well be "As much as it will help them gain short-term votes", not the moral one.
EU isn't actually motivated by voting here, because they have power regardless of who votes for them or not. The Parliament "negotiates" with the Commission (executive branch) for this reason - the EU is set up to ensure that decision making is so far removed from voting that it's entirely irrelevant.
The real reason they do this is they perceive it as a free source of income, which they can then use to buy off states to keep them in the EU itself. Note how the rules only apply to really big companies (i.e. US companies), and the fines are really big, and the rules are vague. It'll be a cash cow that avoids upsetting any local interests, the fact they can drape it in pro-consumer clothes is just a bonus from their perspective.
Re: EU negotiators agree new rules to rein in tech giants
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, i don't think this was thought out, or at least i haven't read anything on this subject. how does the draft text deal with cryptography?
Something like this can't really make end to end encryption interoperable. There will be no encryption at the transitions between systems. Clients would have to use something that can work over arbitrary textual channels like OTR or PGP.
[deleted]