You must log in or register to comment.
21 daystl;dr, they waited for the opposition to go on holiday and then pushed through a special resolution that required them to vote no in order to not pass. It’s shady as fuck.
- WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish21 days
It’s almost like our institutions and political class across the developed world are acting on behalf of capital and not in the peoples best interests…
Maybe that’s why they all collude with surveillance capitalism to violate our civil rights wholesale, and expand the surveillance state…
These are not the actions of a government “for the people”. These are the actions of criminally corrupt tyrants and traitors who should spend the rest of their lives in prison. The fact that they won’t should tell you everything you need to know about our “democracies”.
- 21 days
Taking a lesson in underhanded politics from US republicans. Pass shitty legislation at midnight when nobody else is around to disagree with them.
- greenbit@lemmy.zipEnglish21 days
Huh, that sounds like there’s some next system level evaluation that can repel it then
Well, my country’s legislative bunch has already said, that mass surveilance is against our constitution. I doubt Finland is the only country in EU to have that, so even if it passes fully, it is going to have some big hurdles ahead.
- 20 days
So the EU made everyone put endless cookie acceptance popups up in the name of “privacy” then turns around and flagrantly violates it in the name of “protecting children”. In the US the only thing that isn’t done in the name of “protecting children” is gun regulation.
- richmondez@lemdro.idEnglish20 days
The EU didn’t make anyone do that, site that have no business recoding the information put those up as a dark pattern to try and force people into accepting the terms so they can claim informed consent to the tracking. It’s malicious compliance, they could just not collect that tracking data that isn’t required to provide the service.
- cyberblob@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish21 days
„The Council then sent the file back to Parliament at the beginning of the vacation season, where it was difficult to secure the necessary majority to dismiss it again“
What are we paying these people for? It should be obvious that it is Part of your duties being a member of parliament to monitor and act on stuff while being on vacation.
- littleomid@feddit.orgEnglish21 days
When I have vacation, I don’t want to be bothered with work related stuff either. I understand their want for a vacation, and they should not be blamed. The system that allows this chicanery is at fault here.
The more I hear about The Pirate Party the more I like them.
Are there any Pirate Party representatives in Denmark?
- DigitalMus@feddit.dkEnglish20 days
I checked the danish votes here and it seems like only social demokratiet (social democrats) voted against this bill. All other stronger left leaning parties voted for it as well as all the centrist and right leaning parties. Truly disappointing.
- nomad@infosec.pubEnglish20 days
Manfred Weber of the CSU (EVP chairman) introduced this personally. Roberta Metsola helped him through the procedure.
Remember these names, make sure they lose their jobs.
- sunbytes@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
How long until they say “people are using E2E to get around this. We need to ban/include E2E now”?
“E2E is just for pedos” incoming.
Me and my friend already set up a Matrix server with E2E. I’m hoping Fluxer will get E2E.
The amended EP position adopts a positive, yet rather cosmetic amendment proposed by the liberal RENEW group that would “exclude communications to which end-to-end encryption is, has been, or will be applied” from the scope of the law.
This isnt cosmetic, this is genius! It satisfies lawmakers who want to make this pass to “save the children” and have no idea of the consequences, and it satisfies the lawmakers with braincells since makes the law inapplicable to secure communications.
I hope this does pass so they finally stop trying to push it through. But since they did pass the voluntary one but are still trying to pass the non-voluntary one, I think they will just try to spam chat control laws until their dystopic aim is achieved.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
They still get to eavesdrop on your e-mails.
You know, the digital version of mail.
Guess who used to open and read people’s mail … oh, yeah, the political police of every fucking dictatorship in Europe (both Fascist and Communist) during the XX century.
This is the shit these people in supposedly Democratic nations have enacted.
If you’re a citizen in an EU member state, I suggest you have a look at who are the MEPs in you country who voted for this shit. In mine - Portugal - which had a Fascist dictatorship complete with mail opening secret police, this was passed entirely with the votes of the mainstream parties and even the far-right voted against it.
- Enekk@lemmy.worldEnglish21 days
I agree they should have barriers on getting access to your email, but, and I’m sure you know this on some level, the way email works and can bounce around across multiple servers before landing in your provider’s systems, all in plain text, means you should never rely on email for privacy unless you are encrypting it. I just run on the assumption that copies of all of my emails exist somewhere.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
I do know how the SMTP protocol works.
Just because the envelope is not sealed doesn’t mean that the state should be allowed to get a photocopy of what’s inside to be perused by some apparatchik if they feel like it WITH NOT EVEN A SUSPICION OF A CRIME MUCH LESS JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
Is this shit Democracy or is Autocracy with a bit of Theater of Democracy on top?
Yeah. It might be preferable to draw a line between social media and chat applications.
That way the people who are scared can teach their children to talk on services that are scanned, while people that care for their privacy can opt for private communication.
If it’s about pedophiles sharing stuff with each other, they’ll never be able to stop that.
Why is it the worst part? If the EU admin does not represent its constituents, it should be threatened. Otherwise it ends up being undemocratic rep of various business interests.
- 21 days
Something something governments should be scared of their people
- sunbytes@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
Yeah but the UK has been notably more censorious/orwellian since Brexit, so it’s a weak comparison.
(Not that they’ve got many strong comparisons on their side)
- Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish21 days
Wow the EU pulls ahead of the US in the competition to become the most comprehensive surveillance state
- REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish21 days
So what does this mean? Do we have to use China-based chat apps to avoid domestic spying? I assume US companies (including Whatsapp) will bend to the ruling
I’d say probably best to not trust apps at all. You could roll your own Matrix instance for example, but then who’s to say that the client applications don’t comply?
Trust no one, I suppose.
- softotteep@pawb.socialEnglish20 days
The source code of the client applications prove they don’t comply.
