EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
european-pirateparty.eu
EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#2> 537 Members of the European Parliament
They have names I assume. They can hide, but we can't it seems.
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#3Related discussion from yesterday (an even worse take - the discussion yesterday was around a misunderstanding that this was requiring companies to do this rather than allowing):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727
Actual link to the legislation: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti...
It’s not an overwhelming read.
Key takeaways: no one bans encryption or mandates back doors. No one requires companies to do this, but this suspends the ban on doing it (temporarily).
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#4Ironic that the EU has GDPR, but then this?
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#5> 537 Members of the European Parliament They have names I assume. They can hide, but we can't it seems.
[deleted]
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#6It's the time to impose mandatory encryption as a personal duty against the lack of privacy online (well, it's been the moment since a coupe of decades, my fault...). I know, this has been discussed many times before but something smells like sh.t this days if you ask me...
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#7Ironic that the EU has GDPR, but then this?
Indeed, private companies can't be trusted to install cookies on the sites you visit, that's just too much private information... but regulators/law enforcement? Open bar!
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#8Ironic that the EU has GDPR, but then this?
GDPR is concerned with other aspects, namely personal data handling. It would be ironic if the assumptions circulating around were true - which they are not. The topic is lifting a ban on the backdoors, not mandating them. Some argue it's a slippery slope but for a reason slippery slope arguments are listed under "logical fallacies". These are arguments unfortunately too often used in political discussions but still fallacies nevertheless.
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#9Related discussion from yesterday (an even worse take - the discussion yesterday was around a misunderstanding that this was requiring companies to do this rather than allowing ): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727 Actual link to the legislation: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... It’s not an overwhelming read. Key takeaways: no one bans encryption or mandates back doors. No on…
I don't think it is a bad take. While it doesn't force companies to implement an interface to access content, it is unrealistic to assume they will not if their business isn't advocating privacy.
Additionally, you cannot be sure your line is encrypted on many services. That is a loss in my opinion.
Re: EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications
#10Ironic that the EU has GDPR, but then this?
GDPR is concerned with other aspects, namely personal data handling. It would be ironic if the assumptions circulating around were true - which they are not. The topic is lifting a ban on the backdoors, not mandating them. Some argue it's a slippery slope but for a reason slippery slope arguments are listed under "logical fallacies". These are arguments unfortunately too often used in political discussions but still…
That is misinterpreting the fallacy.
A slippery slope is just a fallacy in a way that there might be insufficient proof for a certain consequence. I rarely read it applied correctly on the internet, although it became quite popular.