10 ms·

Protest against the EU radio lockdown

178 points by zoobab 8y ago

sarcasmOrTears 8y ago
It would be much easier to protest for the creation of a law that punishes the attempt to create or the creation of bad laws. After all when you propose a bad law, you can just propose it again and again and again until it gets implemented, then good luck getting rid of it. As for "how do you define bad laws?". We know it's possible because we have constitutions. We know they can be expanded. We know it's possible to get people jailed if they violate rules, and legislators are people even if they tend to forget this little detail. As for "but what about evil corporation that will not be stopped by the law?". Well, even corporation is the one that usually wants more laws and even discuss the laws that should stop them. If you want any semblance of freedom under a State you need a way to make legislators think very long before legislating.
- andybak 8y ago
  Reminds me of the ongoing fight over crypto-legislation. "They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time" I also suspect that the current patent mess is a result of failing to win the continual defensive battle. I'd be interested to hear from any law or political theorists regarding this seemingly deep flaw in the system. What could be done to mitigate it? How do we stop the same bad laws being proposed in slightly different forms again and again when vested interests combine with a poorly informed legislature?
  - sjwpv 8y ago
    >They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time The law is not a blockchain ledger. If bad law gets in, it can also get removed later.
    - technofiend 8y ago
      It can be but it's an uphill battle the entire way and opponents try to shame crypto supporters with the Four Horsemen of the Crypto Apocalypse: Terrorists, Child Pornographers, Tax Evaders and Those Who Have Something To Hide. Any objection to government surveillance is met with "Well you must be a member of or support the activities of" one or more members of the aforementioned groups. It's better to never let a bad law in than remove it later because people are irrational and bring these emotional arguments into play.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      That takes a long time. In USA we've been trying to end drug prohibition for decades.
      - sjwpv 8y ago
        That's because there's a big amount of people, myself included, who feel like drug prohibition is good, all things considered. Not because "editing" the law is hard. (I am not American).
        jessaustin 8y ago
        That doesn't make the situation different. All of these bad laws have supporters. (Largely because charlatans in government, law enforcement, and media constantly exaggerate dangers, but that's beside the point.)
        sjwpv 8y ago
        By "bad law" I meant laws with absolutely no public support, not laws which are "objectively bad" (such thing made doesn't make sense)
        pas 8y ago
        There's plenty of public support for even the most dystopian laws.
    - makomk 8y ago
      That's not so easy for EU laws. The only body that can propose new EU laws is the European Commission, which ordinary voters have essentially no influence over. (Some of the non-EU Europe-wide bodies are even worse.)
- simion314 8y ago
  But how can groups debate if a law is good or bad, isn't proposing such a law the way the debate is started? Maybe some bad laws have good intentions but some poor wording can have bad consequences. Also why do we think constitutions are perfect, don't countries have to update them periodically to fix them?
  - the8472 8y ago
    Then let courts take stated intent of lawmakers into account and throw out cases where the application of the law is different from the stated intent.
    - simion314 8y ago
      I am not an expert, but I see a problem with this idea too, the lawmaker will need to also write what the intention is, then you can find loopholes in the text of what the intention is. or the intention could be very general so ambiguous to interpret. In some countries there is a way for the people to contest laws as unconstitutional and have judges not politicians decide.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  the issue is the usual: eu is so far removed from constituents it's pointless to try and save it.
ivanbakel 8y ago
What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least some of them must benefit from consumers buying those products specifically for customization. Are the national governments pushing for more radio control? Is there some kind of crisis of radio abuse? Or is it an indirect way to give governments more punishment tools, by making radio modification a subversion of manufacturer controls, so you can be slapped with an additional charge if you ever use a custom radio device in a crime?
- swinglock 8y ago
  Allowed frequencies and transmit power varies in the world, so the cheapest way sell to all markets is to set a few different bits in firmware to make it fit for those regulations. That could be a factor.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    This is what this change is about. It follows similar regulations in the US, btw. Smartphones should be mostly fine if the radios are controlled entirely by the baseband. Then changing the main OS cannot have any effect on the compliance of the device.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The availability of easily-hackable, low-cost Chinese hardware? I'm not as familiar with EU law, but similar changes in the US were prompted by "Import hardware configured legally, but manufacturer winks / doesn't care about flashes to illegal specifications" scenarios (indeed, it may be a way to boost sales). The correct legislative solution seems to mandate locked RF firmware... while also mandating customer access to tinker with the remainder of functionality. This addresses the tendency for manufacturers to simply lock down everything as the cheapest path to legal compliance. TBH, if you want a right to tinker with RF firmware, a ham (or equivalent) license seems a low (probably too low) but necessary and fair burden.
- xondono 8y ago
  Basically the EU has discovered SDR (Software Defined Radio) and wants to limit its use. The usual excuses are given, electrical safety, emission on protected bands...
ycombonator 8y ago
ENJOY the EU reg suffocation.
- sjwpv 8y ago
  The EU becomes a worse and worse idea every year. It was good while it lasted. This will be the first year I vote for an anti-EU party locally. It pains me, but it's been enough already :/
  - sorokod 8y ago
    Are they cool with you installing whatever you want on whatever you own - or are you in "cutting off the nose to spite the face" mode?
    - faissaloo 8y ago
      Unless of course it violates the arbitrary, imaginary monopolies on abstract works and ideas.
    - sjwpv 8y ago
      Have you read it? It would mean, for example, the end of OpenWrt. What about the rest of recent terrible regulations and laws?
      - sorokod 8y ago
        I am saying that you need to compare alternatives - in this case an (often authoritarian) anti-EU party.
      - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
        Then give feedback. The process is open for that reason. If you remove the EU from this you will have the insividual regulators ask for the same. Austria and Switzerland for instance push for this. //edit: also even the proposed regulation would not prevent custom firmwares. You just meed to lock down the radio.
faissaloo 8y ago
Yet another reason why I'm glad for Brexit.
- dpwm 8y ago
  There's still time to oppose this. > Yet another reason why I'm glad for Brexit. If you think that Brexit will stop this, I hope you are right – but I very much fear you are massively underestimating the UK government's appetite for bad laws and bad process.
  - patrickaljord 8y ago
    I think the argument is that with Brexit it's easier to change laws because you only have to deal with/convince one government instead of 30+ ones.
- the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
  That makes no sense. First of all the driver is ETSI which the UK is a big part of, secondly even a non EU country (Switzerland) is behind this. Even after Brexit the UK will likely adopt this.
  - faissaloo 8y ago
    Sure, but it'll also make it easier to revert.
    - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
      Which doesn’t matter because it wouldn’t. The UK is master of crazy laws like this. Just consider the porn ID verification and more.
      - faissaloo 8y ago
        Change takes time, it may take 100+ years but I don't see why I would intentionally put even more barriers in front of a hard enough goal.
remcob 8y ago
We have existing regulations stating what is allowed on which frequencies. Is there evidence that the devices prohibited by the proposal lead to widescale breaking of these regulations? And if so, is there evidence that this causes harm? It's harsh to assume that people can not be trusted with SDRs and therefore we should ban them outright. I'd like these sorts of blanket bans to come with a strong evidence backed reason. I am currently in the process of a obtaining a ham radio license specifically so I can experiment and innovate with SDRs and IOTs and be confident that I do so in compliance with the regulations. This proposal will make it much harder for ham radio enthusiasts and innovators to experiment and learn in a compliant way. ^ Above submitted as feedback
- the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
  > Is there evidence that these devices lead to widescale breaking of these regulations? And if so, is there evidence that this causes harm? Yes there is. A lot of people now import devices from countries with different frequencies causing a mess. This is especially a problem if frequencies are used for other purposes.
  - remcob 8y ago
    > A lot of people now import devices from countries with different frequencies causing a mess. If they are already using devices that are not compliant with EU regulations, then I don't see how stricter regulations would solve this. This sounds like an enforcement issue. What prevents people from importing the very same non-compliant devices under the proposed regulations? In fact, I can see more of this import happening as the domestic devices will now be more expensive and crippled.
    - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
      You could destroy such devices at customs inspection. Currently such devices are legal. The use outside of the legal frequencies is not and enforcement is almost impossible.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
acd 8y ago
This is bad for many reasons * Security, device manufacturers stop supporting updates after a certain while * The environment, lots of devices will become obsolete with no software updates. Free software provides such updates. This will contribute bad towards global warming. * Being able to experiment with hardware you own and run open source.
raverbashing 8y ago
I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules" This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio module - but that's up to debate)
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement... Which is better IMHO. You can sue the FCC if you think they overstepped their bounds as opposed to getting a bunch of politicians behind the repeal of a bad law (which otherwise can only be overturned if it violates the constitution). Or, as sometimes happens, the FCC realizes they made a mistake and/or "conditions on the ground" change and they decide to change the requirements -- also without involving the lawmakers.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    You're probably right, and the FCC is more technically competent
NKosmatos 8y ago
Who in their right mind is thinking up of these stupid rules? Are they aware of the world around them? I assume no :-( If this is approved, I expect a few other similar laws to protect the "common good". Car manufacturers should verify and approve all possible combinations of modifications. You shouldn't be able to increase your horsepower (and possibly kill more people), surely the car manufacturer should take the blame and responsiblity for whatever you do with your car ;-) As a matter of fact our good EU government (overlords) should regulate and ban whatever is not safe for us, they know better. Being in EU, I'm going to add my comment to the official link provided in the OP blog post and I encourage everyone in the EU to do the same.
- TheAdamist 8y ago
  The are going to be mandating GPS based speed limiters on all new vehicles for the EU, as has been reported recently. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-fitted-rules-european-parliament/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-...
appstorelottery 8y ago
Does the Raspberry PI count as IOT? Crazy.
johnnycab 8y ago
After a quick read, the amendment in this directive seems far too general to be enforced effectively. If you parse it with the FOSS principles and revoking the ability to flash or install LineageOS, OpenWRT, Tasmota etc., it is counter-intuitive to some of the principles empowering consumers e.g. restricting locked bootloaders by carriers. If passed into law, it might make a test-case for sales of rogue drones but it won't be able to stop Baofeng handsets flooding a market. The EU needs reminding that restricting freedom in this way is a terrible idea.
FrankDixon 8y ago
the eu is really on a streak with counterproductive legislature atm

178 points by zoobab 8y ago

It would be much easier to protest for the creation of a law that punishes the attempt to create or the creation of bad laws. After all when you propose a bad law, you can just propose it again and again and again until it gets implemented, then good luck getting rid of it. As for "how do you define bad laws?". We know it's possible because we have constitutions. We know they can be expanded. We know it's possible to get people jailed if they violate rules, and legislators are people even if they tend to forget this little detail. As for "but what about evil corporation that will not be stopped by the law?". Well, even corporation is the one that usually wants more laws and even discuss the laws that should stop them. If you want any semblance of freedom under a State you need a way to make legislators think very long before legislating.

andybak 8y ago
Reminds me of the ongoing fight over crypto-legislation. "They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time" I also suspect that the current patent mess is a result of failing to win the continual defensive battle. I'd be interested to hear from any law or political theorists regarding this seemingly deep flaw in the system. What could be done to mitigate it? How do we stop the same bad laws being proposed in slightly different forms again and again when vested interests combine with a poorly informed legislature?
- sjwpv 8y ago
  >They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time The law is not a blockchain ledger. If bad law gets in, it can also get removed later.
  - technofiend 8y ago
    It can be but it's an uphill battle the entire way and opponents try to shame crypto supporters with the Four Horsemen of the Crypto Apocalypse: Terrorists, Child Pornographers, Tax Evaders and Those Who Have Something To Hide. Any objection to government surveillance is met with "Well you must be a member of or support the activities of" one or more members of the aforementioned groups. It's better to never let a bad law in than remove it later because people are irrational and bring these emotional arguments into play.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    That takes a long time. In USA we've been trying to end drug prohibition for decades.
    - sjwpv 8y ago
      That's because there's a big amount of people, myself included, who feel like drug prohibition is good, all things considered. Not because "editing" the law is hard. (I am not American).
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        That doesn't make the situation different. All of these bad laws have supporters. (Largely because charlatans in government, law enforcement, and media constantly exaggerate dangers, but that's beside the point.)
        sjwpv 8y ago
        By "bad law" I meant laws with absolutely no public support, not laws which are "objectively bad" (such thing made doesn't make sense)
        pas 8y ago
        There's plenty of public support for even the most dystopian laws.
  - makomk 8y ago
    That's not so easy for EU laws. The only body that can propose new EU laws is the European Commission, which ordinary voters have essentially no influence over. (Some of the non-EU Europe-wide bodies are even worse.)
simion314 8y ago
But how can groups debate if a law is good or bad, isn't proposing such a law the way the debate is started? Maybe some bad laws have good intentions but some poor wording can have bad consequences. Also why do we think constitutions are perfect, don't countries have to update them periodically to fix them?
- the8472 8y ago
  Then let courts take stated intent of lawmakers into account and throw out cases where the application of the law is different from the stated intent.
  - simion314 8y ago
    I am not an expert, but I see a problem with this idea too, the lawmaker will need to also write what the intention is, then you can find loopholes in the text of what the intention is. or the intention could be very general so ambiguous to interpret. In some countries there is a way for the people to contest laws as unconstitutional and have judges not politicians decide.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
the issue is the usual: eu is so far removed from constituents it's pointless to try and save it.

ivanbakel 8y ago

What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least some of them must benefit from consumers buying those products specifically for customization. Are the national governments pushing for more radio control? Is there some kind of crisis of radio abuse? Or is it an indirect way to give governments more punishment tools, by making radio modification a subversion of manufacturer controls, so you can be slapped with an additional charge if you ever use a custom radio device in a crime?

swinglock 8y ago
Allowed frequencies and transmit power varies in the world, so the cheapest way sell to all markets is to set a few different bits in firmware to make it fit for those regulations. That could be a factor.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  This is what this change is about. It follows similar regulations in the US, btw. Smartphones should be mostly fine if the radios are controlled entirely by the baseband. Then changing the main OS cannot have any effect on the compliance of the device.
ethbro 8y ago
The availability of easily-hackable, low-cost Chinese hardware? I'm not as familiar with EU law, but similar changes in the US were prompted by "Import hardware configured legally, but manufacturer winks / doesn't care about flashes to illegal specifications" scenarios (indeed, it may be a way to boost sales). The correct legislative solution seems to mandate locked RF firmware... while also mandating customer access to tinker with the remainder of functionality. This addresses the tendency for manufacturers to simply lock down everything as the cheapest path to legal compliance. TBH, if you want a right to tinker with RF firmware, a ham (or equivalent) license seems a low (probably too low) but necessary and fair burden.
xondono 8y ago
Basically the EU has discovered SDR (Software Defined Radio) and wants to limit its use. The usual excuses are given, electrical safety, emission on protected bands...

ycombonator 8y ago

ENJOY the EU reg suffocation.

sjwpv 8y ago
The EU becomes a worse and worse idea every year. It was good while it lasted. This will be the first year I vote for an anti-EU party locally. It pains me, but it's been enough already :/
- sorokod 8y ago
  Are they cool with you installing whatever you want on whatever you own - or are you in "cutting off the nose to spite the face" mode?
  - faissaloo 8y ago
    Unless of course it violates the arbitrary, imaginary monopolies on abstract works and ideas.
  - sjwpv 8y ago
    Have you read it? It would mean, for example, the end of OpenWrt. What about the rest of recent terrible regulations and laws?
    - sorokod 8y ago
      I am saying that you need to compare alternatives - in this case an (often authoritarian) anti-EU party.
    - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
      Then give feedback. The process is open for that reason. If you remove the EU from this you will have the insividual regulators ask for the same. Austria and Switzerland for instance push for this. //edit: also even the proposed regulation would not prevent custom firmwares. You just meed to lock down the radio.

faissaloo 8y ago

Yet another reason why I'm glad for Brexit.

dpwm 8y ago
There's still time to oppose this. > Yet another reason why I'm glad for Brexit. If you think that Brexit will stop this, I hope you are right – but I very much fear you are massively underestimating the UK government's appetite for bad laws and bad process.
- patrickaljord 8y ago
  I think the argument is that with Brexit it's easier to change laws because you only have to deal with/convince one government instead of 30+ ones.
the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
That makes no sense. First of all the driver is ETSI which the UK is a big part of, secondly even a non EU country (Switzerland) is behind this. Even after Brexit the UK will likely adopt this.
- faissaloo 8y ago
  Sure, but it'll also make it easier to revert.
  - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
    Which doesn’t matter because it wouldn’t. The UK is master of crazy laws like this. Just consider the porn ID verification and more.
    - faissaloo 8y ago
      Change takes time, it may take 100+ years but I don't see why I would intentionally put even more barriers in front of a hard enough goal.

remcob 8y ago

We have existing regulations stating what is allowed on which frequencies. Is there evidence that the devices prohibited by the proposal lead to widescale breaking of these regulations? And if so, is there evidence that this causes harm? It's harsh to assume that people can not be trusted with SDRs and therefore we should ban them outright. I'd like these sorts of blanket bans to come with a strong evidence backed reason. I am currently in the process of a obtaining a ham radio license specifically so I can experiment and innovate with SDRs and IOTs and be confident that I do so in compliance with the regulations. This proposal will make it much harder for ham radio enthusiasts and innovators to experiment and learn in a compliant way. ^ Above submitted as feedback

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
> Is there evidence that these devices lead to widescale breaking of these regulations? And if so, is there evidence that this causes harm? Yes there is. A lot of people now import devices from countries with different frequencies causing a mess. This is especially a problem if frequencies are used for other purposes.
- remcob 8y ago
  > A lot of people now import devices from countries with different frequencies causing a mess. If they are already using devices that are not compliant with EU regulations, then I don't see how stricter regulations would solve this. This sounds like an enforcement issue. What prevents people from importing the very same non-compliant devices under the proposed regulations? In fact, I can see more of this import happening as the domestic devices will now be more expensive and crippled.
  - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
    You could destroy such devices at customs inspection. Currently such devices are legal. The use outside of the legal frequencies is not and enforcement is almost impossible.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

acd 8y ago

This is bad for many reasons * Security, device manufacturers stop supporting updates after a certain while * The environment, lots of devices will become obsolete with no software updates. Free software provides such updates. This will contribute bad towards global warming. * Being able to experiment with hardware you own and run open source.

raverbashing 8y ago

I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules" This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio module - but that's up to debate)

UncleEntity 8y ago
> I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement... Which is better IMHO. You can sue the FCC if you think they overstepped their bounds as opposed to getting a bunch of politicians behind the repeal of a bad law (which otherwise can only be overturned if it violates the constitution). Or, as sometimes happens, the FCC realizes they made a mistake and/or "conditions on the ground" change and they decide to change the requirements -- also without involving the lawmakers.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  You're probably right, and the FCC is more technically competent

NKosmatos 8y ago

Who in their right mind is thinking up of these stupid rules? Are they aware of the world around them? I assume no :-( If this is approved, I expect a few other similar laws to protect the "common good". Car manufacturers should verify and approve all possible combinations of modifications. You shouldn't be able to increase your horsepower (and possibly kill more people), surely the car manufacturer should take the blame and responsiblity for whatever you do with your car ;-) As a matter of fact our good EU government (overlords) should regulate and ban whatever is not safe for us, they know better. Being in EU, I'm going to add my comment to the official link provided in the OP blog post and I encourage everyone in the EU to do the same.

TheAdamist 8y ago
The are going to be mandating GPS based speed limiters on all new vehicles for the EU, as has been reported recently. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-fitted-rules-european-parliament/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-...

appstorelottery 8y ago

Does the Raspberry PI count as IOT? Crazy.

johnnycab 8y ago

After a quick read, the amendment in this directive seems far too general to be enforced effectively. If you parse it with the FOSS principles and revoking the ability to flash or install LineageOS, OpenWRT, Tasmota etc., it is counter-intuitive to some of the principles empowering consumers e.g. restricting locked bootloaders by carriers. If passed into law, it might make a test-case for sales of rogue drones but it won't be able to stop Baofeng handsets flooding a market. The EU needs reminding that restricting freedom in this way is a terrible idea.

FrankDixon 8y ago

the eu is really on a streak with counterproductive legislature atm