5 ms·

don't let yourselves be fooled, fools. if this takes any real form, it'll be gutted and ripped apart until there's nothing of essence left because it would mean

• Tyrannosaur 9y ago
  I often take a pessimistic view to such good-looking things too. But taking a look at your first link, it appears to already not be in force anymore? For the same reasons that the new recommendation is being drafted- government surveillance violates fundamental rights to privacy. "On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Directive 2006/24/EC invalid for violating fundamental rights. The Council's Legal Services have been reported to have stated in closed session that paragraph 59 of the European Court of Justice's ruling "suggests that general and blanket data retention is no longer possible".[15] A legal opinion funded by the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament finds that the blanket retention data of unsuspicious persons generally violates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, both in regard to national telecommunications data retention laws and to similar EU data retention schemes (PNR, TFTP, TFTS, LEA access to EES, Eurodac, VIS)."
• yorwba 9y ago
  Page 30: > When the processing of electronic communications data by providers of electronic communications services falls within its scope, this Regulation is without prejudice to the possibility for the Union or Member States under specific conditions to restrict by law certain obligations and rights set out in this Regulation when such a restriction is targeted at persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence and constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard specific public interests, including national security, defence, public security and the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. Therefore, this Regulation should not affect the ability of Member States to carry out lawful interception of electronic communications or take other measures, if necessary and proportionate to safeguard the public interests mentioned above, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about preventing state surveillance, this is about regulating non-state actors' ability e.g. to track users without their consent. Edit: However, on page 74 > The providers of electronic communications services shall ensure that there is sufficient protection in place against unauthorised access or alterations to the electronic communications data, and that the confidentiality and safety of the transmission are also guaranteed by the nature of the means of transmission used or by state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of the electronic communications data. Furthermore, when encryption of electronic communications data is used, decryption, reverse engineering or monitoring of such communications shall be prohibited. Member States shall not impose any obligations on electronic communications service providers that would result in the weakening of the security and encryption of their networks and services. It seems to me that this requires end-to-end encryption, but the regulation is scoped in such a way that the requirement may be lifted when it inconveniences law enforcement.
  • HappyTypist 9y ago
    The key is the OR: * "sufficient protection in place against unauthorised access or alterations" * "guaranteed by the nature of the means of transmission used " * "OR" * "state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of the electronic communications data" aka: - HTTPS, non-ETE: fine - HTTP, non-ETE: not fine - HTTP, ETE: fine