241–250 of 278 posts
They're not going to stop, are they?
Law enforcement should stop them. In countries like Germany this is very likely illegal and amounts to preparation of terrorist act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not EU cookie banners that have ruined the internet, it's malicious compliance and dark pattens on behalf of those that want to track you.
The EU's own government websites have these same cookie banners. Are they maliciously compliant with their own regulations? EU made bad laws that have encouraged this kind of behavior. And now we're all suffering. Look at the CCPA in California for legislation that accomplishes largely the same goals, but doesn't break the web due to "malicious compliance".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a reminder "EU cookie banners" are not required if you use cookies for site functionality. They are only required if your site uses these to track users. This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.
Not quite. > This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. This is the reason why these are usually separated to "strictly necessary" and "functional" cook…
I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity. Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.
Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.
The main argument for this seems to be that they catch many pedos by using image recognition tech on facebook etc. Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly. I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?! Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending…
These pro-surveillance narratives don't even attempt to look plausible, they are aimed at the average Joe/Mohammed/whoever with attention span of 10ms and IQ of a guppy.
At that point it has become clear to most Europe is not a democracy anymore. It has lost any legitimacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
> The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections. The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying m…
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, b…
IIRC they used to catch a lot of child groomers by scanning messages.
Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
> Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Some EU citizens want it? You'd be surprised on the views of some people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, another key fact to bring up here once again: The institution that forced this through is the EU Council, the body that represents national governments and is composed of heads of government . The reason they have to force it through and couldn't do 2.0 is because the EU Parliament stopped them. In other words, it's the nation states that want this and the EU institutions that are blocking it, not the other way…
"If not for the EU, a much worse version of this would already be law in the nation states." In some, in some not. Not everyone is the UK. Many nations which had a totalitarian government in the 20th century are more wary about this sort of sweeping surveillance power. The "charm" of pushing this through the circuitous path via Brussels is that few people and even few media outlets are paying attention to what happen…
I think a good step for transparency would be forcing Council votes to be open so the ire could be redirected at the appropriate national governments instead of letting them EU-wash their unpopular ideas.