4 ms·

this has been addressed several times here on HN in the past and it's still false. No one removed digital privacy in EU. The pirate party is desperate for att

this has been addressed several times here on HN in the past and it's still false. No one removed digital privacy in EU. The pirate party is desperate for attention among EU electors, it only has a total of 4 members, Breyer is the only German that was elected and the only one from a western European country. They need to get titles on newspapers, they're good at doing it, but sometimes they go on a hyperbole. Moreover: data retention is Breyer's pet peeve, he built a career around it so he obviously talk constantly about it. If some of you here ever spent time in the environment of the EU elected representatives, you'd know how much each one of them lobby for their agenda, all the time, non-stop. To add some more details: this is not a private company spying on its users, this is a coalition formed by 25 sovereign countries passing a law that harmonize the different legislation around searching for potentially unlawful digital communications. But the article 5a) specifically states that > Notwithstanding their legitimate objective, these activities constitute an interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private and family life and protection of personal data of all users. Any limitation to the fundamental right to respect for private and family life, including the confidentiality of communications, cannot be justified merely on the ground that certain technologies were previously deployed when the services concerned did not, from a legal perspective, constitute electronic communications services. Such interference is only possible under certain conditions. It needs to be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights to private and family life and to the protection of personal data and, in compliance with the principle of proportionality, be necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others as enshrined in Article 52 (1) of the Charter. Where such measures permanently involve a general and indiscriminate monitoring and analysis of communications of all users, they interfere with the right to confidentiality of communications.

ud_0 5y ago
> No one removed digital privacy in EU. Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world. The EU currently has tenuous protections that are in danger of being superceded by concerns that are perceived as higher precedence. The article does seem to be doing a reasonable job of highlighting one such process and sets it in context with the bigger issue. > The pirate party is desperate for attention among EU electors, it only has a total of 4 members [...] Just because a political opinion has almost no supporters doesn't mean it's wrong. Historically, privacy alarmists got it right more often than not. None of the scenarios outlined in the article seem particularly over the top to me. > Moreover: data retention is Breyer's pet peeve, he built a career around it so he obviously talk constantly about it. I don't know this person, if you say they're untrustworthy I'll take your word for it. But being against data retention seems a reasonably stance in my opinion. > If some of you here ever spent time in the environment of the EU elected representatives, you'd know how much each of them the lobby for their agenda, all the time, non-stop. I'm not sure what to make of this sentence. I have no doubt that EU officials are lobbying for their agendas. But the debacle behind the upload filter / copyright directives has shown to me that those agendas either don't include digital rights (in which case they apparently default to deferring to industry lobbyists) or their agendas are not particularly well aligned with citizens' interests.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world This is not the case though. This case is EU against tech giants not wanting strict laws around data manipulation. They have been subjected to the law in Europe, which is a fundamental right for us Europeans. I know people here are against public intervention, but we generally trust the public in EU, more than Google or Apple for sure. > if you say they're untrustworthy I'll take your word for it. I'm not saying they are untrustworthy, on the contrary, they are to be trusted, but sometimes they shoot to the moon. > I have no doubt that EU officials are lobbying for their agendas I mean that if you read the personal website of an EU representative whose entire career revolves around data retention, you will only find his/her radical opinion on the matter, because it's their job to present it. Even if you go out and have a drink with them, they won't stop talking about it (it happened to me personally many times). They do it constantly.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    > Even if you go out and have a drink with them, they won't stop talking about it (it happened to me personally many times). Are you an lobbyist than? I can't imagine any other reason Breyer would talk personally to someone with our opinions while having a drink together. > > Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world > This is not the case though. Quite a distorted view on reality given all the surveillance laws passed over the last few years… It feels by now as there would be new attacks on peoples freedom form the government almost on a daily base. Enjoy the a look at the tip of the iceberg: https://www.statewatch.org/observatories/ https://www.statewatch.org/observatories/
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > Are you an lobbyist than? I can't imagine any other reason Breyer would talk personally to someone with our opinions while having a drink together. No, I lived in Bruseels for a while with my girlfriend at the time that worked for the parliament. Brussels is a small city and elected representatives are humans, just like us, they go out just like the rest of us. I was shocked too when I realized they can't stop talking about their job, not even for a second. > Quite a distorted view on reality given all the surveillance laws passed over the last few years… Specifically, which one? In Europe I mean. I'm familiar with statewatch, they are a reliable source, but they treat civil liberties as an absolute value, a parliament represent every possible political opinion that the people elected, they have different jobs and represent different interests. Democracy is not the same thing as "the perfect place where nothing we disagree with ever happens". As a term of comparison: do you think people are more surveilled in Europe or in the United States? (just mentioning the two champions of liberal democracy, even countries like Japan are worse put than these 2 in terms of state surveillance.)
nicce 5y ago
In fact, GDPR is only 3 years old. Let’s put timeline of the past 10 years. Has privacy increased or decreased?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  increased. A lot! (not thanks to US tech companies of course, but the laws in EU are trying to fix their excessive power and overreach) My (ex) girlfriend worked as a technical consultant on this law. I also usually agree with the Pirate Party and many critiques to some EU proposals are my critiques. I also voted for them in my country, I personally knew some of the candidates, we've been friends for a long time In my country we specifically focused on the right to distribute copyrighted material (via torrent or other technologies) that was of importance for the public. Like for example old movies or documentaries or film screenings in public open spaces, especially in smaller towns where there are no theatres. Or material in possession of public broadcast networks that was paid by the taxpayers. The national Television of my country produced something like hundreds of live recordings of bands that came here, but most of them never saw the light of day. In their archives there is, for example, a two hours Sonic Youth live, from 1989, recorded at the TV studios that actually was a full fledged concert hall for classical music. How cool is that? It never aired. But if you distribute it or show it to someone, technically you're breaking the law, even though citizen paid for it with their taxes. Unfortunately we elected zero representatives. Nevertheless how this vote is being presented is hyperbolic, to say the least, and doesn't reflect the work being done. The law presented has as a primary objectives making the tech giants responsible while protecting the EU people from their abuses. They are prohibited to spy on you, unless they have been authorized by the law. That's the spirit. Without legislation, in Europe what's not prohibited is permitted and people would be at the mercy of what corporations want to do with their data.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    > They are prohibited to spy on you, unless they have been authorized by the law. > That's the spirit. Don't turn things upside down! The spirit is that they are now REQUIRED to spy on all their customers. Before that they where not allowed to do it any more as there were no exceptions to the new e-privacy laws. So the companies stopped spying on people as it became illegal. That caused mayor panic in the EU government as they couldn't use those company's data for mass surveillance any more (law enforcement has access to that data; by now even secretly without court warrants! Before that they had "general warrants" for secret services, "national security" interests, and such). First thing the EU did was giving the companies an "emergency allowance" to do mass surveillance again. This law now turn that "emergency allowance" into proper rules, which not only allow mass surveillance, but make it mandatory. The story (like I told) up until the current point can be read here (frankly in German, by the biggest IT online-media there): https://www.heise.de/news/EU-Parlament-erlaubt-flaechendeckende-Scans-nach-Kinderpornografie-6130267.html https://www.heise.de/news/EU-Parlament-erlaubt-flaechendecke... (There you can also see how "powerful" the EU parliament is, and that they again pass laws that are obviously against the constitution. Laws that than must be fought for many years in front the EU courts before those laws get eventually declared illegal; at this point the EU just passes a new illegal law; they're using this "trick" since inception by the way. It worked fine locally in the countries for decades now. At least it's like that in Germany, but I don't think the other countries are an exception as the EU does it also like that since day one). Don't get me wrong with this last aside: I'm a big fan of the idea behind the EU. But the execution of this idea is more and more turning into a nightmare. Everything that would not be possible locally is cheated thru the EU institutions; than they claim locally "The EU wants it so. We must obey!". But the truth is, the EU is ruled by the governments of the countries, not by the people of said countries, so "the EU" actually does what the governments tell them — the obvious trick being here to "blame the EU" afterwards, pointing away form themself.
yreg 5y ago
>this has been addressed several times here on HN in the past and it's still false Can you debunk (some of) the specific claims made in the article?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  The only specific false claim is that "EU removed digital privacy". It is not true, digital privacy is in fact still intact and it is, anyway, no less effective than it was yesterday. On the contrary, the Google/Apple of the World could spy on you with he excuse of "searching for CP", now they cannot unless authorized by the law.

ud_0 5y ago

> No one removed digital privacy in EU. Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world. The EU currently has tenuous protections that are in danger of being superceded by concerns that are perceived as higher precedence. The article does seem to be doing a reasonable job of highlighting one such process and sets it in context with the bigger issue. > The pirate party is desperate for attention among EU electors, it only has a total of 4 members [...] Just because a political opinion has almost no supporters doesn't mean it's wrong. Historically, privacy alarmists got it right more often than not. None of the scenarios outlined in the article seem particularly over the top to me. > Moreover: data retention is Breyer's pet peeve, he built a career around it so he obviously talk constantly about it. I don't know this person, if you say they're untrustworthy I'll take your word for it. But being against data retention seems a reasonably stance in my opinion. > If some of you here ever spent time in the environment of the EU elected representatives, you'd know how much each of them the lobby for their agenda, all the time, non-stop. I'm not sure what to make of this sentence. I have no doubt that EU officials are lobbying for their agendas. But the debacle behind the upload filter / copyright directives has shown to me that those agendas either don't include digital rights (in which case they apparently default to deferring to industry lobbyists) or their agendas are not particularly well aligned with citizens' interests.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world This is not the case though. This case is EU against tech giants not wanting strict laws around data manipulation. They have been subjected to the law in Europe, which is a fundamental right for us Europeans. I know people here are against public intervention, but we generally trust the public in EU, more than Google or Apple for sure. > if you say they're untrustworthy I'll take your word for it. I'm not saying they are untrustworthy, on the contrary, they are to be trusted, but sometimes they shoot to the moon. > I have no doubt that EU officials are lobbying for their agendas I mean that if you read the personal website of an EU representative whose entire career revolves around data retention, you will only find his/her radical opinion on the matter, because it's their job to present it. Even if you go out and have a drink with them, they won't stop talking about it (it happened to me personally many times). They do it constantly.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  > Even if you go out and have a drink with them, they won't stop talking about it (it happened to me personally many times). Are you an lobbyist than? I can't imagine any other reason Breyer would talk personally to someone with our opinions while having a drink together. > > Digital privacy is demonstrably being eroded on many fronts, all over the world > This is not the case though. Quite a distorted view on reality given all the surveillance laws passed over the last few years… It feels by now as there would be new attacks on peoples freedom form the government almost on a daily base. Enjoy the a look at the tip of the iceberg: https://www.statewatch.org/observatories/ https://www.statewatch.org/observatories/
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > Are you an lobbyist than? I can't imagine any other reason Breyer would talk personally to someone with our opinions while having a drink together. No, I lived in Bruseels for a while with my girlfriend at the time that worked for the parliament. Brussels is a small city and elected representatives are humans, just like us, they go out just like the rest of us. I was shocked too when I realized they can't stop talking about their job, not even for a second. > Quite a distorted view on reality given all the surveillance laws passed over the last few years… Specifically, which one? In Europe I mean. I'm familiar with statewatch, they are a reliable source, but they treat civil liberties as an absolute value, a parliament represent every possible political opinion that the people elected, they have different jobs and represent different interests. Democracy is not the same thing as "the perfect place where nothing we disagree with ever happens". As a term of comparison: do you think people are more surveilled in Europe or in the United States? (just mentioning the two champions of liberal democracy, even countries like Japan are worse put than these 2 in terms of state surveillance.)

nicce 5y ago

In fact, GDPR is only 3 years old. Let’s put timeline of the past 10 years. Has privacy increased or decreased?

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
increased. A lot! (not thanks to US tech companies of course, but the laws in EU are trying to fix their excessive power and overreach) My (ex) girlfriend worked as a technical consultant on this law. I also usually agree with the Pirate Party and many critiques to some EU proposals are my critiques. I also voted for them in my country, I personally knew some of the candidates, we've been friends for a long time In my country we specifically focused on the right to distribute copyrighted material (via torrent or other technologies) that was of importance for the public. Like for example old movies or documentaries or film screenings in public open spaces, especially in smaller towns where there are no theatres. Or material in possession of public broadcast networks that was paid by the taxpayers. The national Television of my country produced something like hundreds of live recordings of bands that came here, but most of them never saw the light of day. In their archives there is, for example, a two hours Sonic Youth live, from 1989, recorded at the TV studios that actually was a full fledged concert hall for classical music. How cool is that? It never aired. But if you distribute it or show it to someone, technically you're breaking the law, even though citizen paid for it with their taxes. Unfortunately we elected zero representatives. Nevertheless how this vote is being presented is hyperbolic, to say the least, and doesn't reflect the work being done. The law presented has as a primary objectives making the tech giants responsible while protecting the EU people from their abuses. They are prohibited to spy on you, unless they have been authorized by the law. That's the spirit. Without legislation, in Europe what's not prohibited is permitted and people would be at the mercy of what corporations want to do with their data.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  > They are prohibited to spy on you, unless they have been authorized by the law. > That's the spirit. Don't turn things upside down! The spirit is that they are now REQUIRED to spy on all their customers. Before that they where not allowed to do it any more as there were no exceptions to the new e-privacy laws. So the companies stopped spying on people as it became illegal. That caused mayor panic in the EU government as they couldn't use those company's data for mass surveillance any more (law enforcement has access to that data; by now even secretly without court warrants! Before that they had "general warrants" for secret services, "national security" interests, and such). First thing the EU did was giving the companies an "emergency allowance" to do mass surveillance again. This law now turn that "emergency allowance" into proper rules, which not only allow mass surveillance, but make it mandatory. The story (like I told) up until the current point can be read here (frankly in German, by the biggest IT online-media there): https://www.heise.de/news/EU-Parlament-erlaubt-flaechendeckende-Scans-nach-Kinderpornografie-6130267.html https://www.heise.de/news/EU-Parlament-erlaubt-flaechendecke... (There you can also see how "powerful" the EU parliament is, and that they again pass laws that are obviously against the constitution. Laws that than must be fought for many years in front the EU courts before those laws get eventually declared illegal; at this point the EU just passes a new illegal law; they're using this "trick" since inception by the way. It worked fine locally in the countries for decades now. At least it's like that in Germany, but I don't think the other countries are an exception as the EU does it also like that since day one). Don't get me wrong with this last aside: I'm a big fan of the idea behind the EU. But the execution of this idea is more and more turning into a nightmare. Everything that would not be possible locally is cheated thru the EU institutions; than they claim locally "The EU wants it so. We must obey!". But the truth is, the EU is ruled by the governments of the countries, not by the people of said countries, so "the EU" actually does what the governments tell them — the obvious trick being here to "blame the EU" afterwards, pointing away form themself.

yreg 5y ago

>this has been addressed several times here on HN in the past and it's still false Can you debunk (some of) the specific claims made in the article?

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
The only specific false claim is that "EU removed digital privacy". It is not true, digital privacy is in fact still intact and it is, anyway, no less effective than it was yesterday. On the contrary, the Google/Apple of the World could spy on you with he excuse of "searching for CP", now they cannot unless authorized by the law.