4 ms·
Put simply, the resolution is no different from the previous proposals which generated a wide backlash from privacy-conscious companies, civil society members,
by eddieoz 6y ago
Put simply, the resolution is no different from the previous proposals which generated a wide backlash from privacy-conscious companies, civil society members, experts, and MEPs. The difference this time is that the Council has taken a more subtle approach and avoided explicitly using words like ‘ban’ or ‘backdoor.’ But make no mistake, this is the intention. It’s important that steps are taken now to prevent these proposals going too far and keep European’s rights to privacy intact.”
- bitcharmer 6y agoThere were all too many efforts from EU to ban or at least limit encryption. They all get shot down for perfectly valid reasons only to come back after a few months in one form or another. This implies that: 1) there is a clear agenda among the political class to go against the will of the citizens despite the strong opposition to the idea 2) it will eventually succeed because they will hide the legislation in some obscure act of law anyway An example how shady EU council can be: "Acta was slipped through the European Council in an agriculture and fisheries meeting in December" https://www.wired.co.uk/article/acta-101 https://www.wired.co.uk/article/acta-101
- prof-dr-ir 6y agoI do not (entirely) disagree with your comment, but I think it would be fair to add some counterweight to the evidence you provide for your point (2): Acta was ultimately rejected by the European Parliament.
- bitcharmer 6y agoI never said ACTA was passed. Just provided example of tactics employed to sneak in laws that general public strongly opposes.
- prof-dr-ir 6y agoAgreed. But your original point would be stronger if you could provide actual examples of passed EU legislation that was "snuck in".