5 ms·

Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.

by balozi 5y ago

adventured 5y ago
Well it may not be for the British, they're not going to get less mass surveillance due to Brexit. However for some countries that could choose to leave the EU due to totalitarian laws like this, it may be a benefit, if they choose to pursue a privacy-focused path. Which are the most privacy-focused nations in the EU that might leave over a law like this?
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  This is such an uninformed comment. By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. Anything else you hear is spin. Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out, and the aim is to have a more thorough piece of legislation on the books in 3 years. For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Saying it's uninformed doesn't make it so, nice try at front-loading some argument from intimidation though. > For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia. First of all, who said that the US or UK didn't? That's misdirection. This story is about the EU. What I posited, is member states leaving the EU, those that are heavily concerned about privacy rights. What would that have to do with the US laws? > Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out A temporary mass surveillance bill. Yeah right. You were saying something about uninformed.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      Sorry but please read the politico article posted a dozen times in this discussion. It is less agenda driven and wuotd clearly spells out this is just a law to allow providers to do it, not an obligation. In fact that provision existed before but was running out, thus this temporary law. As regards the brexit comment, you are right my writing was unnecessarily harsh but you missed the main point: > By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. The history of much EU bashing is that national governments vote YES in Brussels then turn around and say nationally 'really sorry we are obliged to implement this EU law' -- the very law they could have vetoed if they had wanted to. This is one of the basics of EU lawmaking which the previous commenter clearly was ignorant of.
    - DaedPsyker 5y ago
      How is it misdirection? The comment said maybe the brexiteers were right, so why would leaving for the purpose of privacy benefit when UK's own laws go beyond the EU? The answer isn't brexit it's changing your own laws in that case.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dane-pgp 5y ago
Wait until you see what the UK government is planning to do with all its new found sovereignty: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/access-denied-service-blocking-in-the-online-safety-bill/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/access-denied-service-b...

Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.

by balozi 5y ago

Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.

Well it may not be for the British, they're not going to get less mass surveillance due to Brexit. However for some countries that could choose to leave the EU due to totalitarian laws like this, it may be a benefit, if they choose to pursue a privacy-focused path. Which are the most privacy-focused nations in the EU that might leave over a law like this?

estaseuropano 5y ago
This is such an uninformed comment. By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. Anything else you hear is spin. Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out, and the aim is to have a more thorough piece of legislation on the books in 3 years. For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia.
- adventured 5y ago
  Saying it's uninformed doesn't make it so, nice try at front-loading some argument from intimidation though. > For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia. First of all, who said that the US or UK didn't? That's misdirection. This story is about the EU. What I posited, is member states leaving the EU, those that are heavily concerned about privacy rights. What would that have to do with the US laws? > Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out A temporary mass surveillance bill. Yeah right. You were saying something about uninformed.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    Sorry but please read the politico article posted a dozen times in this discussion. It is less agenda driven and wuotd clearly spells out this is just a law to allow providers to do it, not an obligation. In fact that provision existed before but was running out, thus this temporary law. As regards the brexit comment, you are right my writing was unnecessarily harsh but you missed the main point: > By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. The history of much EU bashing is that national governments vote YES in Brussels then turn around and say nationally 'really sorry we are obliged to implement this EU law' -- the very law they could have vetoed if they had wanted to. This is one of the basics of EU lawmaking which the previous commenter clearly was ignorant of.
  - DaedPsyker 5y ago
    How is it misdirection? The comment said maybe the brexiteers were right, so why would leaving for the purpose of privacy benefit when UK's own laws go beyond the EU? The answer isn't brexit it's changing your own laws in that case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dane-pgp 5y ago

Wait until you see what the UK government is planning to do with all its new found sovereignty: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/access-denied-service-blocking-in-the-online-safety-bill/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/access-denied-service-b...