5 ms·

Why is the EU trying to regulate outside it's jurisdiction? Why doesn't the EU simply provide a 'core' set of servers, which they operate to a high degree of f

Why is the EU trying to regulate outside it's jurisdiction? Why doesn't the EU simply provide a 'core' set of servers, which they operate to a high degree of fidelity and robustness so that 'should something go wrong' ... then the EU still has these resilient services to reply upon? I don't see how someone doing a public service should arbitrarily come under such scrutiny.

guerrilla 6y ago
> Why is the EU trying to regulate outside it's jurisdiction? My first question is are they or is this the authors view?
- latk 6y ago
  It is primarily the authors view. The proposed regulation – like many EU regulations – can also apply to non-EU entities. In this sense, the EU does try to exert extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, this is constrained to the case where the non-EU entity targets people in the EU, so somehow participates in the EU market. The origins of this “targeting criterion” actually come from consumer protection cases, where it's easy to understand: if you advertise your goods or services to people in a particular country, you'll have to play by that country's rules.
  - jollybean 6y ago
    None of these systems advertise their goods or services anywhere really. So that's going to be a funny day in the ECJ.
dncornholio 6y ago
I can make the analogy that public transport is a public service, but that doesn't mean people have to drive in old and unsafe busses and trains right?
BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
It’s the nature of governments and bureaucracies to try and control as much as they can. The kinds of people who draft these regulations aren’t interested in limited legislation. The United States is particularly guilty of this - we frequently demand that other countries follow our regulatory rules, especially around banking and “anti-terrorism”.
- kazen44 6y ago
  > It’s the nature of governments and bureaucracies to try and control as much as they can. The kinds of people who draft these regulations aren’t interested in limited legislation there is not really any other way to play the geopolitical game sadly. Every goverment on earth is doing this to keep themselves stable, some are just far more succesfull then others.
emouryto 6y ago
Why not? Let's see... the past year the was a big scandal because apparently multiple non-profits were selling the .ORG top level domain name for $1B. They got these top level domain for free from the US government (or some institution thereof). I would certainly like the EU to regulate more of the Internet instead of it being an US territory.
- martimarkov 6y ago
  This is ICANN’s responsibility and not root DNS servers. They are completely separate entities. If you dislike this go shout at ICANN. It’s was US organisation - now it’s a “private” one[1] [1] https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-of-iana-functions-transitions-to-global-internet-community-as-contract-with-us-government-ends-1-10-2016-en https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-o...
  - herbst 6y ago
    It is still a US company regulated by US laws isnt it?
krona 6y ago
> I don't see how someone doing a public service should arbitrarily come under such scrutiny. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me. The service provided exists in many EU countries, and therefore must eventually be harmonised. This is the prime directive of the project.
- jollybean 6y ago
  "and therefore must eventually be harmonised. This is the prime directive of the project" That's not a very good prime directive. Don't regulate things that don't need to be regulated, i.e. unless there is a very material benefit from it. If the EU is concerned about WW3 level resiliency for these services, they can accomplish that themselves with a few cord, 'hardened' services that meet their criteria. For 'regular operations' it seems we're going quite well right now. Unless there is a threat posed by these heretofore independent operators ... then I'm don't see any obvious material benefit here. I'm wondering if somehow these entities could be compromised in a way that makes them a problem, more so than just 'going offline', in which case, maybe there are some benefits.
  - oaiey 6y ago
    Not they cannot. A DNS request in China is not targeting a European root but a local one. And that can affect a European citizen.
    - martimarkov 6y ago
      Umm idk if I put 1.1.1.1 as my DNS which root is it targeting? The one in China? Or if I put 0.0.0.0 (IP of EU run DNS server backed by EU run root) then is it still China? There is a simpler solution rather than enforcing EU oversight over root DNSes.
      - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
        Cloudflare is one of the private operators of root servers mentioned in the article so you would be using the F root server. https://blog.cloudflare.com/f-root/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/f-root/
mattashii 6y ago
It doesn't, really; see paragraph (65) in the document [0]. It states something along the lines of "if you're providing services stationed in the EU, or services directed people that live in the EU, then you must comply with these regulations". Basically, an import regulation for operators that do not have a presence in the EU (but do target the EU market), and an operating regulation for those that have a presence in the EU. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72172 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72172
- jollybean 6y ago
  'target the EU market' is vague. These are independent operators, NGOs etc, services being 'used by EU citizens' not really 'targeting Europeans'. From a liability perspective, to the author's point these services I suppose would have to just filter out European sources? Why would they publish a regulation so obviously vague, full well knowing the reality on the ground? Why wouldn't they use language that unambiguously places NASA etc. firmly 'in our out' of the regulations or, some criteria which they would be one way or another? Seems odd.
  - oaiey 6y ago
    That is exactly how gdpr is set up. Which is good. Regards NGOs: just because you do not make money does not make you a saint. Regards vagueness: if you want to survive in an agile environment without rewriting every second day, vagueness is the way to go.
    - EricE 6y ago
      >That is exactly how gdpr is set up. Which is good. So if the US comes out with "GDPR- The Next Generation" with similar mandates towards the EU would that also be "good"? Asking for a friend.
      - oaiey 6y ago
        FISA courts and the law they are based on? The US is explicitly or implicitly doing this all the time. Or the Hague invasion act which is pretty much that case (US soldier are protected abroad against international treaties).
oneplane 6y ago
If you want to look at it from that perspective: the same reason the US does it. People also tend to forget that providing a service (in whatever fashion) doesn't exist in a vacuum, there are the services and then there are the consumers of those services and they might have certain freedoms and rights that the locality of the service in question might not honour. Take the right to control your data for example, the US isn't very good at providing that with the services they offer, and they'd rather not have that freedom and rather make those few percent more money.
- kazen44 6y ago
  Also, it makes sense in the broader EU strategy of becoming less reliant on the US. The EU has a good amount of soft power, this is just testing testing it's waters in directing policy more directly. (other examples are the Iran deal after the US left, and Intervention in Africa) Geopolitically, this makes a lot of sense, and i think the idea has good intentions, but the implementation of the law is where it falls short.

guerrilla 6y ago

> Why is the EU trying to regulate outside it's jurisdiction? My first question is are they or is this the authors view?

latk 6y ago
It is primarily the authors view. The proposed regulation – like many EU regulations – can also apply to non-EU entities. In this sense, the EU does try to exert extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, this is constrained to the case where the non-EU entity targets people in the EU, so somehow participates in the EU market. The origins of this “targeting criterion” actually come from consumer protection cases, where it's easy to understand: if you advertise your goods or services to people in a particular country, you'll have to play by that country's rules.
- jollybean 6y ago
  None of these systems advertise their goods or services anywhere really. So that's going to be a funny day in the ECJ.

dncornholio 6y ago

I can make the analogy that public transport is a public service, but that doesn't mean people have to drive in old and unsafe busses and trains right?

BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago

It’s the nature of governments and bureaucracies to try and control as much as they can. The kinds of people who draft these regulations aren’t interested in limited legislation. The United States is particularly guilty of this - we frequently demand that other countries follow our regulatory rules, especially around banking and “anti-terrorism”.

kazen44 6y ago
> It’s the nature of governments and bureaucracies to try and control as much as they can. The kinds of people who draft these regulations aren’t interested in limited legislation there is not really any other way to play the geopolitical game sadly. Every goverment on earth is doing this to keep themselves stable, some are just far more succesfull then others.

emouryto 6y ago

Why not? Let's see... the past year the was a big scandal because apparently multiple non-profits were selling the .ORG top level domain name for $1B. They got these top level domain for free from the US government (or some institution thereof). I would certainly like the EU to regulate more of the Internet instead of it being an US territory.

martimarkov 6y ago
This is ICANN’s responsibility and not root DNS servers. They are completely separate entities. If you dislike this go shout at ICANN. It’s was US organisation - now it’s a “private” one[1] [1] https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-of-iana-functions-transitions-to-global-internet-community-as-contract-with-us-government-ends-1-10-2016-en https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/stewardship-o...
- herbst 6y ago
  It is still a US company regulated by US laws isnt it?

krona 6y ago

> I don't see how someone doing a public service should arbitrarily come under such scrutiny. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me. The service provided exists in many EU countries, and therefore must eventually be harmonised. This is the prime directive of the project.

jollybean 6y ago
"and therefore must eventually be harmonised. This is the prime directive of the project" That's not a very good prime directive. Don't regulate things that don't need to be regulated, i.e. unless there is a very material benefit from it. If the EU is concerned about WW3 level resiliency for these services, they can accomplish that themselves with a few cord, 'hardened' services that meet their criteria. For 'regular operations' it seems we're going quite well right now. Unless there is a threat posed by these heretofore independent operators ... then I'm don't see any obvious material benefit here. I'm wondering if somehow these entities could be compromised in a way that makes them a problem, more so than just 'going offline', in which case, maybe there are some benefits.
- oaiey 6y ago
  Not they cannot. A DNS request in China is not targeting a European root but a local one. And that can affect a European citizen.
  - martimarkov 6y ago
    Umm idk if I put 1.1.1.1 as my DNS which root is it targeting? The one in China? Or if I put 0.0.0.0 (IP of EU run DNS server backed by EU run root) then is it still China? There is a simpler solution rather than enforcing EU oversight over root DNSes.
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      Cloudflare is one of the private operators of root servers mentioned in the article so you would be using the F root server. https://blog.cloudflare.com/f-root/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/f-root/

mattashii 6y ago

It doesn't, really; see paragraph (65) in the document [0]. It states something along the lines of "if you're providing services stationed in the EU, or services directed people that live in the EU, then you must comply with these regulations". Basically, an import regulation for operators that do not have a presence in the EU (but do target the EU market), and an operating regulation for those that have a presence in the EU. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72172 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72172

jollybean 6y ago
'target the EU market' is vague. These are independent operators, NGOs etc, services being 'used by EU citizens' not really 'targeting Europeans'. From a liability perspective, to the author's point these services I suppose would have to just filter out European sources? Why would they publish a regulation so obviously vague, full well knowing the reality on the ground? Why wouldn't they use language that unambiguously places NASA etc. firmly 'in our out' of the regulations or, some criteria which they would be one way or another? Seems odd.
- oaiey 6y ago
  That is exactly how gdpr is set up. Which is good. Regards NGOs: just because you do not make money does not make you a saint. Regards vagueness: if you want to survive in an agile environment without rewriting every second day, vagueness is the way to go.
  - EricE 6y ago
    >That is exactly how gdpr is set up. Which is good. So if the US comes out with "GDPR- The Next Generation" with similar mandates towards the EU would that also be "good"? Asking for a friend.
    - oaiey 6y ago
      FISA courts and the law they are based on? The US is explicitly or implicitly doing this all the time. Or the Hague invasion act which is pretty much that case (US soldier are protected abroad against international treaties).

oneplane 6y ago

If you want to look at it from that perspective: the same reason the US does it. People also tend to forget that providing a service (in whatever fashion) doesn't exist in a vacuum, there are the services and then there are the consumers of those services and they might have certain freedoms and rights that the locality of the service in question might not honour. Take the right to control your data for example, the US isn't very good at providing that with the services they offer, and they'd rather not have that freedom and rather make those few percent more money.

kazen44 6y ago
Also, it makes sense in the broader EU strategy of becoming less reliant on the US. The EU has a good amount of soft power, this is just testing testing it's waters in directing policy more directly. (other examples are the Iran deal after the US left, and Intervention in Africa) Geopolitically, this makes a lot of sense, and i think the idea has good intentions, but the implementation of the law is where it falls short.