4 ms·

I'd hope such an important law to be passed after a thorough examination, testing, and debate. In reality it will be nodded through in the UK by 400 people who

I'd hope such an important law to be passed after a thorough examination, testing, and debate. In reality it will be nodded through in the UK by 400 people who have barely skimmed it.

viraptor 6y ago
That implementation has been already reviewed by the UK years ago. The referenced document is about "stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime" which goes down to details like XML format of the exchanged data and which parts of DNA are used to identify people across Europe. It's not something that UK can change on its own and definitely not something that should give anyone a pause before accepting the document as was already implemented - just because an old browser is listed in examples. It can easily be debated as "do we have any issues with the technical details of the international exchange of forensic information or should we continue with what we have right now?"
- ben_w 6y ago
  It also says to hash with SHA-1 and encrypt with 1024 bit RSA, which is more concerning and less amusing than Netscape Communicator.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    EU law is full of stuff like this. There's no philosophical conception that law should be minimal or regulation a last resort, so they pass huge laws all the time that specify precise details of things and which get very out of date. A good example is to compare US law on digital signatures Vs EU law. The latter mandates PKIX and the former just says words to the effect of any digital equivalent of a signature. So you can imagine which is simpler and more flexible.
    - realityking 6y ago
      Since this regulation is not a standard to be used by the public but how governments of various countries interact, I don’t see the problem. Imagine they had only specified “must be encrypted”. Now France is going with S/MIME with SHA1 but the UK with SHA-256. The French system didn’t anticipate this and the can’t decrypt it. Meanwhile Germany is using PGP and nobody can read anything. Long way to say: strong specs improve interoperability.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      > former just says words to the effect of any digital equivalent of a signature The US has FIPS enforced at federal level. FIPS tells you not only what ciphers are allowed, but also how you're going to compile your SSL libraries and in which environment. It's typically way behind practical recommendations in real world. Tell me again how it's more simple and flexible?
Hamuko 6y ago
I was under the impression that the EU-UK deal was going to be applied temporarily for some months in order to give all sides time to go over it without significant issues to trade.
- lolc 6y ago
  Looks more like the now permanent extension to the extension. They didn't come up with something better in the last years. Why expect that to change?
- Silhouette 6y ago
  There has been no implication of anything here being temporary in any reporting I've seen during the whole process. Did you see something specific that gave you that impression?
- ajb 6y ago
  Not exactly. The agreement will be temporary because the EU parliament was supposed to get to review it and there wasn't time. However that's supposed to complete soon, not in some months. The agreement itself does have provision to evolve over time though. See https://davidallengreen.com/2020/12/this-agreement-is-not-the-end-of-brexit-it-is-a-five-year-political-truce/ https://davidallengreen.com/2020/12/this-agreement-is-not-th...
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >However that's supposed to complete soon, not in some months. The European Commission's website suggests that the temporary approval will last until 28 February 2021.

I'd hope such an important law to be passed after a thorough examination, testing, and debate. In reality it will be nodded through in the UK by 400 people who have barely skimmed it.

viraptor 6y ago

That implementation has been already reviewed by the UK years ago. The referenced document is about "stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime" which goes down to details like XML format of the exchanged data and which parts of DNA are used to identify people across Europe. It's not something that UK can change on its own and definitely not something that should give anyone a pause before accepting the document as was already implemented - just because an old browser is listed in examples. It can easily be debated as "do we have any issues with the technical details of the international exchange of forensic information or should we continue with what we have right now?"

ben_w 6y ago
It also says to hash with SHA-1 and encrypt with 1024 bit RSA, which is more concerning and less amusing than Netscape Communicator.
- thu2111 6y ago
  EU law is full of stuff like this. There's no philosophical conception that law should be minimal or regulation a last resort, so they pass huge laws all the time that specify precise details of things and which get very out of date. A good example is to compare US law on digital signatures Vs EU law. The latter mandates PKIX and the former just says words to the effect of any digital equivalent of a signature. So you can imagine which is simpler and more flexible.
  - realityking 6y ago
    Since this regulation is not a standard to be used by the public but how governments of various countries interact, I don’t see the problem. Imagine they had only specified “must be encrypted”. Now France is going with S/MIME with SHA1 but the UK with SHA-256. The French system didn’t anticipate this and the can’t decrypt it. Meanwhile Germany is using PGP and nobody can read anything. Long way to say: strong specs improve interoperability.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > former just says words to the effect of any digital equivalent of a signature The US has FIPS enforced at federal level. FIPS tells you not only what ciphers are allowed, but also how you're going to compile your SSL libraries and in which environment. It's typically way behind practical recommendations in real world. Tell me again how it's more simple and flexible?

Hamuko 6y ago

I was under the impression that the EU-UK deal was going to be applied temporarily for some months in order to give all sides time to go over it without significant issues to trade.

lolc 6y ago
Looks more like the now permanent extension to the extension. They didn't come up with something better in the last years. Why expect that to change?
Silhouette 6y ago
There has been no implication of anything here being temporary in any reporting I've seen during the whole process. Did you see something specific that gave you that impression?
ajb 6y ago
Not exactly. The agreement will be temporary because the EU parliament was supposed to get to review it and there wasn't time. However that's supposed to complete soon, not in some months. The agreement itself does have provision to evolve over time though. See https://davidallengreen.com/2020/12/this-agreement-is-not-the-end-of-brexit-it-is-a-five-year-political-truce/ https://davidallengreen.com/2020/12/this-agreement-is-not-th...
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >However that's supposed to complete soon, not in some months. The European Commission's website suggests that the temporary approval will last until 28 February 2021.