3 ms·

Privacy is strongly regulated in EU, there was a strong push for it from both our legislators and normal citizens. We asked the states to be involved and not le

by yulaow 10y ago

Privacy is strongly regulated in EU, there was a strong push for it from both our legislators and normal citizens. We asked the states to be involved and not let the "free market" decide by itself. In my state one of the most important and independent role in government is the "Privacy Regulator" which has the power to check, verify and impose strong regulations on how you manage others data, and is very active.

rglullis 10y ago
I'm sad to inform you, this is a horrible trap you and many Europeans fall into. All of this legislation comes from lobby groups representing the big telcos, who are just desperately looking for ways to keep the OTT's away. Just a couple of weeks ago a draft bill was published indicating that OTT's must be able to comply with the same regulations as a telco, which means, among things like "ability to call emergency services", that end-to-end encryption would NOT be allowed, because end-to-end encryption kills the capacity for "lawful interception". [1] [1]: FT article, looks like it paywalled, link to google cache: "Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up" https://goo.gl/MFYaIx https://goo.gl/MFYaIx
- kaybe 10y ago
  So would you say the situation is worse than elsewhere? Especially considering we are not US citizens and thus free game under the US constitution.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    All that I can say is that if we actually had free markets, one's citizenship wouldn't matter at all. For better or for worse, it would be up to individuals to inform ourselves and seek privacy, security and financial profits as we see fit.
    - kaybe 10y ago
      And we'd be up individually against huge conglomerates full of lawyers and psychologists trying to trick us. Without some sort of organization with comparable power on the consumer's side, this is not a very bright proposition. edit: (Bright not as in 'intelligent', but as in 'bright future'.)
      - rglullis 10y ago
        > huge conglomerates full of lawyers(...) I think it is easy to challenge this notion that Corporatism is something that comes to existence due to the absence of regulation bodies and government intervention. If you have solid institutions and a simple code of laws that allows well-intentioned people to work for their self-interest and of their society, we wouldn't have the amount of regulatory capture that we see nowadays. > some sort of organization with comparable power on the consumer's side. When Adam Smith was talking about "the invisible hand", it is precisely this kind of organization that is being talked about. All the people need, as a whole, to have "comparable power" is the freedom to choose and access to information.
- ionwake 10y ago
  What is an OTT?
  - danielbln 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content
- yulaow 10y ago
  Whatever you are citing is not competence of the "Privacy Regulator" nor it can take any decision on it. The Privacy Regulator rather is pushing for strong end-to-end encryption to protect user data, at least in my country. You are citing something totally different and out of his scope.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy..." End-to-end encryption, by definition, is something that excludes any third-party from being able to intervene. If you take the Hobbesian view of the State and subscribe to the idea that Government has a legitimate monopoly on violence, how would a government be able to exercise this monopoly without relying on cooperation from any of the end parties? It is not in the interest of Governmental agents to give this much power to its citizens. End-to-end encryption is something that NO government will ever adopt or actually push to its citizens, ever, unless they are one of the "ends" on this. I don't buy it, and I hate that I am starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if the concern about privacy was serious, why haven't we seen any legislation about encryption on email? Which country is actually educating people about PGP? Why is the privacy concern only for phone and messaging, where the telcos have been making their money all these years? You can have a "Privacy Regulator" all you want, in the end it is just a role that is being used to give some sense of legitimacy in this play directed by the corporations.
- timthorn 10y ago
  Data protection legislation long predates OTT services. The original UK act dates from 1984, the EU act from 1995. True, there have been revisions since, but this didn't come into law to prevent Netflix from starting.

by yulaow 10y ago

rglullis 10y ago

I'm sad to inform you, this is a horrible trap you and many Europeans fall into. All of this legislation comes from lobby groups representing the big telcos, who are just desperately looking for ways to keep the OTT's away. Just a couple of weeks ago a draft bill was published indicating that OTT's must be able to comply with the same regulations as a telco, which means, among things like "ability to call emergency services", that end-to-end encryption would NOT be allowed, because end-to-end encryption kills the capacity for "lawful interception". [1] [1]: FT article, looks like it paywalled, link to google cache: "Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up" https://goo.gl/MFYaIx https://goo.gl/MFYaIx

kaybe 10y ago
So would you say the situation is worse than elsewhere? Especially considering we are not US citizens and thus free game under the US constitution.
- rglullis 10y ago
  All that I can say is that if we actually had free markets, one's citizenship wouldn't matter at all. For better or for worse, it would be up to individuals to inform ourselves and seek privacy, security and financial profits as we see fit.
  - kaybe 10y ago
    And we'd be up individually against huge conglomerates full of lawyers and psychologists trying to trick us. Without some sort of organization with comparable power on the consumer's side, this is not a very bright proposition. edit: (Bright not as in 'intelligent', but as in 'bright future'.)
    - rglullis 10y ago
      > huge conglomerates full of lawyers(...) I think it is easy to challenge this notion that Corporatism is something that comes to existence due to the absence of regulation bodies and government intervention. If you have solid institutions and a simple code of laws that allows well-intentioned people to work for their self-interest and of their society, we wouldn't have the amount of regulatory capture that we see nowadays. > some sort of organization with comparable power on the consumer's side. When Adam Smith was talking about "the invisible hand", it is precisely this kind of organization that is being talked about. All the people need, as a whole, to have "comparable power" is the freedom to choose and access to information.
ionwake 10y ago
What is an OTT?
- danielbln 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content
yulaow 10y ago
Whatever you are citing is not competence of the "Privacy Regulator" nor it can take any decision on it. The Privacy Regulator rather is pushing for strong end-to-end encryption to protect user data, at least in my country. You are citing something totally different and out of his scope.
- rglullis 10y ago
  "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy..." End-to-end encryption, by definition, is something that excludes any third-party from being able to intervene. If you take the Hobbesian view of the State and subscribe to the idea that Government has a legitimate monopoly on violence, how would a government be able to exercise this monopoly without relying on cooperation from any of the end parties? It is not in the interest of Governmental agents to give this much power to its citizens. End-to-end encryption is something that NO government will ever adopt or actually push to its citizens, ever, unless they are one of the "ends" on this. I don't buy it, and I hate that I am starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if the concern about privacy was serious, why haven't we seen any legislation about encryption on email? Which country is actually educating people about PGP? Why is the privacy concern only for phone and messaging, where the telcos have been making their money all these years? You can have a "Privacy Regulator" all you want, in the end it is just a role that is being used to give some sense of legitimacy in this play directed by the corporations.
timthorn 10y ago
Data protection legislation long predates OTT services. The original UK act dates from 1984, the EU act from 1995. True, there have been revisions since, but this didn't come into law to prevent Netflix from starting.