6 ms·

This did get posted a few weeks ago at the time it was written but didn't get much traction at that point, yet seems like a reasonably important issue. The EU h

by xoa 5y ago

This did get posted a few weeks ago at the time it was written but didn't get much traction at that point, yet seems like a reasonably important issue. The EU has done worthy things for issues like privacy, but whatever pluses and minuses of regulating personal and business policy I'm a lot more dubious about government sticking its hand directly into how specific software (like browsers) functions. That seems like a serious step beyond merely trying to ensure there is competition and choice in different products, full disclosure about them, level playing fields etc. Dictating implementation details even for open source feels like something with much, much more scope for serious negative side effects getting baked in particularly in fields where best practices move fast. A negative security example that comes readily to mind are how bad government policies/standards helped cement for a long time the awful practice of complex password requirements including rapid change requirements, "security questions" and so on. These are actively negative for security, people in the field realized pretty fast (and of course many argued from the start) that the only reqs for passwords should be some minimum length, not using previously exposed ones, and having a sufficiently high maximum length that everyone is free to use more comfortable ones like diceware if they wished. While that has been getting revised at last bureaucracy still moves much too slowly there. Of course this hasn't made it through the gauntlet and hopefully won't, but I'm glad to see it getting some attention.

dahfizz 5y ago
I feel similarly about the EU forcing companies to use usb-C as a charging port. I love usb-C, and it is basically a requirement for any electronic I buy. But forcing everyone to use it until the end of time is ridiculous. Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C.
- mariusor 5y ago
  What makes you believe it's until the end of time? They did do it with micro USB also. From what I can see the mandate changes with the times, so if everything evolves I would assume that they'll update their requirements.
- bjelkeman-again 5y ago
  EU mandated GSM, which was a success, but we aren’t stuck with it still.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    We aren't stuck with _just_ gsm, but all phones still have to carry support for 2g. The analogous scenario is a phone with 2 charging ports. The legacy usb-c alongside the newer port you would actually want/use.
    - logifail 5y ago
      > [..] but all phones still have to carry support for 2g. Q: Do network operators/SIM card (re)sellers still have to support 2G, or just the phone manufacturers?
      - soco 5y ago
        The sim/operator is irrelevant for emergency calls, and the motivation behind keeping 2G is better signal reach for emergency calls. So I guess even if you wouldn't be able to call your friends from the top of the mountain, you could successfully dial or sms to 112 (if there's a distant mast somewhere in sight with a signal to camp on).
      - floatboth 5y ago
        Not sure how it is in the EU specifically but many new networks around the world do not have 2G (Jio in India is (in)famously 4G-only, Tele2 in Moscow is 3G+4G)
    - soco 5y ago
      GSM aka 2G is kept as fallback for dumb terminals - it's rather 3G which was (is) sunsetted. I think keeping it is actually a sensible decision.
- AnssiH 5y ago
  For the record, the feedback period on the EU charging port directive proposal is still open until tomorrow: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2020-Standard-chargers-for-mobile-phones_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa... I quickly glanced at a couple of the feedback documents they've got so far, and they seem to echo your concerns. We'll see if the parliament makes any changes.
- phicoh 5y ago
  I don't understand the 'never gotten usb-C' part. Modern phones have more than enough space for two connectors. So usb-C next to a micro-B charging port is no problem. After a while, almost all phone also have usb-C, most people like usb-C, so the industry can petition to replace micro-B with usb-C. Are there any examples where the EU mandates legacy stuff that is no longer useful, but still has to be kept anyway?
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    Ports actually do take up valuable real estate inside a phone. There are downsides to making phones have two USB ports. More ports on the bottom means less space for the second speaker and microphone, and makes waterproofing more difficult. I don't think any manufacturer would actually do it outside devices designed for special use cases.
    - samus 5y ago
      Good point. Especially since phone manufacturers are moving to get rid of the headphone jack as well...
  - NotEvil 5y ago
    You are missing that if micro-b was an "have to include" port. Usb-c whouldn't be created. There will be no incentive
  - alibarber 5y ago
    Is that really better though? Phones would have to be manufactured with an unused port - and if you want to use all the functionality you’d need to buy another cable (yet more e-waste) Not that I have ‘the answer’ just that it’s a hard problem.
    - Teever 5y ago
      Given that most of my phones have been replaced due to issues with the USB port it would be pretty sweet if my phones had two charging ports.
- jollybean 5y ago
  USB-C is at least to some extent about standardization. It's a less complicated issue, while nuanced, I think most of the details are manageable by a willing political actor. It's also a known quantity. This MOZ paper deals with much more complicated things. I'm wary of involvement, I wonder if there are industry-led solutions that could be supported. If MSFT, G, FB, AMZN could agree on something with the blessing of the EU and indirectly the US, I wonder if would happen very quickly.
- input_sh 5y ago
  > Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. They did, you don't have to imagine it. In 2009 they've signed a memorandum of understanding with 14 phone companies, which is why micro-B was the standard before type C. Apple was within those that signed it, and used a loophole in the text to ship a lightning-to-micro-B adapter instead. Around 2016 they've realised micro-B was outdated and notified the signatories that they should switch to type C. https://www.macrumors.com/guide/eu-charging-standard-proposals-and-apple/ https://www.macrumors.com/guide/eu-charging-standard-proposa...
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    A Memorandum of Understanding is a far cry from the legislation they are trying to push through. A MoU is not legally binding. From your link: > The recent 582-40 parliamentary vote in favor of a common charging standard came about because the European Commission's previous approach of merely "encouraging" tech companies to develop a standardized solution "fell short of the co-legislators' objectives," according to a briefing on the European Parliament website. The first phones with USB-C came out in 2015. If this MoU was instead binding legislation, those USB-C phones never would not have been allowed.
    - input_sh 5y ago
      Almost as if they've seen a shortcoming with signing just a memorandum of understanding and took it a step further this time around. > To address the challenges for consumers as well as the environment, the Commission has supported a common charging solution for mobile phones and similar electronic devices since 2009. The Commission first facilitated a voluntary agreement by the industry in 2009 that resulted in the adoption of the first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and led to reducing the number of existing charging solutions for mobile phones on the market from 30 to 3. Following the Memorandum's expiration in 2014, a new proposal by industry presented in March 2018 was not considered satisfactory in delivering a common charging solution or meeting the need for improved consumer convenience and e-waste reduction. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4613 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago
  On a slightly different angle, my frustration is that it's not done on a general standards or outcome based requirement. For example rather than dictating a specific thing or even standard like micro-USB, simply require, e.g., that 90% of all power cables must comply with an industry self-organized standard within 3 years of the final release and, e.g., that the largest firms must subsidize the compliance by the smallest firms in order to prevent gaming the system to drive the small companies out of business. There is a rather significant and major issue that this change highlights; essentially all our politicians and bureaucrats see themselves as smart and wise enough to be central planners and masters of the universe … when the truth could not be farther from it.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. But they didn't. These people aren't that dumb, they told companies to settle on a standard, and now that we have a good standard that basically everyone follows they want to make a law to ensure everybody follows it. Bringing up a scenario where they did the right thing and argue "just imagine if they didn't do the right thing here, that would be a problem!" isn't a strong argument.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    It is the standard now, but should it be the standard forever? What happens when we want better features as new tech is invented?
    - chii 5y ago
      > What happens when we want better features as new tech is invented? The new tech would prove itself, somehow, and then the standard changed over after there's evidence that the new tech improves more than the cost of the change!
      - cortesoft 5y ago
        How would a new tech prove itself if manufacturers aren’t allowed to use it in their product? If customers aren’t allowed to try something new, they are never going to be able to determine if customers prefer it. The only way to ‘prove’ that a tech is better than another is by letting the market decide.
      - samus 5y ago
        Dropping a Memorandum of Understanding is almost for free. Putting a law out of commission (pun not intended) is a completely different story!
  - taxyz23 5y ago
    If basically everyone follows, then why require it and shut off or slow down future innovation? Regulations like this are nearly always obsolete by the time they are implemented.
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  That is a really, really obvious problem, so why do you think you are the first person on the planet who ever thought of it? And that nobody addressed it? > But forcing everyone to use it until the end of time is ridiculous. Correct, it is ridiculous you think anyone did that. > Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. They did. We do have usb-c.
raxxorrax 5y ago
The EU has neither the authority nor the competency to lay out such identity frameworks and I would say they would decrease security in any case. This is again about surveillance and attempts to get control on information. HTTPS basic auth is secure and should always be an option. There, perfect interop. There is not enough trust and political currency to accept such measures in my opinion. Formalized ID systems seem to net more attack vectors than what we currently have.

by xoa 5y ago

dahfizz 5y ago

I feel similarly about the EU forcing companies to use usb-C as a charging port. I love usb-C, and it is basically a requirement for any electronic I buy. But forcing everyone to use it until the end of time is ridiculous. Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C.

mariusor 5y ago
What makes you believe it's until the end of time? They did do it with micro USB also. From what I can see the mandate changes with the times, so if everything evolves I would assume that they'll update their requirements.
bjelkeman-again 5y ago
EU mandated GSM, which was a success, but we aren’t stuck with it still.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  We aren't stuck with _just_ gsm, but all phones still have to carry support for 2g. The analogous scenario is a phone with 2 charging ports. The legacy usb-c alongside the newer port you would actually want/use.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > [..] but all phones still have to carry support for 2g. Q: Do network operators/SIM card (re)sellers still have to support 2G, or just the phone manufacturers?
    - soco 5y ago
      The sim/operator is irrelevant for emergency calls, and the motivation behind keeping 2G is better signal reach for emergency calls. So I guess even if you wouldn't be able to call your friends from the top of the mountain, you could successfully dial or sms to 112 (if there's a distant mast somewhere in sight with a signal to camp on).
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Not sure how it is in the EU specifically but many new networks around the world do not have 2G (Jio in India is (in)famously 4G-only, Tele2 in Moscow is 3G+4G)
  - soco 5y ago
    GSM aka 2G is kept as fallback for dumb terminals - it's rather 3G which was (is) sunsetted. I think keeping it is actually a sensible decision.
AnssiH 5y ago
For the record, the feedback period on the EU charging port directive proposal is still open until tomorrow: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2020-Standard-chargers-for-mobile-phones_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa... I quickly glanced at a couple of the feedback documents they've got so far, and they seem to echo your concerns. We'll see if the parliament makes any changes.
phicoh 5y ago
I don't understand the 'never gotten usb-C' part. Modern phones have more than enough space for two connectors. So usb-C next to a micro-B charging port is no problem. After a while, almost all phone also have usb-C, most people like usb-C, so the industry can petition to replace micro-B with usb-C. Are there any examples where the EU mandates legacy stuff that is no longer useful, but still has to be kept anyway?
- babypuncher 5y ago
  Ports actually do take up valuable real estate inside a phone. There are downsides to making phones have two USB ports. More ports on the bottom means less space for the second speaker and microphone, and makes waterproofing more difficult. I don't think any manufacturer would actually do it outside devices designed for special use cases.
  - samus 5y ago
    Good point. Especially since phone manufacturers are moving to get rid of the headphone jack as well...
- NotEvil 5y ago
  You are missing that if micro-b was an "have to include" port. Usb-c whouldn't be created. There will be no incentive
- alibarber 5y ago
  Is that really better though? Phones would have to be manufactured with an unused port - and if you want to use all the functionality you’d need to buy another cable (yet more e-waste) Not that I have ‘the answer’ just that it’s a hard problem.
  - Teever 5y ago
    Given that most of my phones have been replaced due to issues with the USB port it would be pretty sweet if my phones had two charging ports.
jollybean 5y ago
USB-C is at least to some extent about standardization. It's a less complicated issue, while nuanced, I think most of the details are manageable by a willing political actor. It's also a known quantity. This MOZ paper deals with much more complicated things. I'm wary of involvement, I wonder if there are industry-led solutions that could be supported. If MSFT, G, FB, AMZN could agree on something with the blessing of the EU and indirectly the US, I wonder if would happen very quickly.
input_sh 5y ago
> Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. They did, you don't have to imagine it. In 2009 they've signed a memorandum of understanding with 14 phone companies, which is why micro-B was the standard before type C. Apple was within those that signed it, and used a loophole in the text to ship a lightning-to-micro-B adapter instead. Around 2016 they've realised micro-B was outdated and notified the signatories that they should switch to type C. https://www.macrumors.com/guide/eu-charging-standard-proposals-and-apple/ https://www.macrumors.com/guide/eu-charging-standard-proposa...
- dahfizz 5y ago
  A Memorandum of Understanding is a far cry from the legislation they are trying to push through. A MoU is not legally binding. From your link: > The recent 582-40 parliamentary vote in favor of a common charging standard came about because the European Commission's previous approach of merely "encouraging" tech companies to develop a standardized solution "fell short of the co-legislators' objectives," according to a briefing on the European Parliament website. The first phones with USB-C came out in 2015. If this MoU was instead binding legislation, those USB-C phones never would not have been allowed.
  - input_sh 5y ago
    Almost as if they've seen a shortcoming with signing just a memorandum of understanding and took it a step further this time around. > To address the challenges for consumers as well as the environment, the Commission has supported a common charging solution for mobile phones and similar electronic devices since 2009. The Commission first facilitated a voluntary agreement by the industry in 2009 that resulted in the adoption of the first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and led to reducing the number of existing charging solutions for mobile phones on the market from 30 to 3. Following the Memorandum's expiration in 2014, a new proposal by industry presented in March 2018 was not considered satisfactory in delivering a common charging solution or meeting the need for improved consumer convenience and e-waste reduction. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4613 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
frankfrankfrank 5y ago
On a slightly different angle, my frustration is that it's not done on a general standards or outcome based requirement. For example rather than dictating a specific thing or even standard like micro-USB, simply require, e.g., that 90% of all power cables must comply with an industry self-organized standard within 3 years of the final release and, e.g., that the largest firms must subsidize the compliance by the smallest firms in order to prevent gaming the system to drive the small companies out of business. There is a rather significant and major issue that this change highlights; essentially all our politicians and bureaucrats see themselves as smart and wise enough to be central planners and masters of the universe … when the truth could not be farther from it.
Jensson 5y ago
> Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. But they didn't. These people aren't that dumb, they told companies to settle on a standard, and now that we have a good standard that basically everyone follows they want to make a law to ensure everybody follows it. Bringing up a scenario where they did the right thing and argue "just imagine if they didn't do the right thing here, that would be a problem!" isn't a strong argument.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  It is the standard now, but should it be the standard forever? What happens when we want better features as new tech is invented?
  - chii 5y ago
    > What happens when we want better features as new tech is invented? The new tech would prove itself, somehow, and then the standard changed over after there's evidence that the new tech improves more than the cost of the change!
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      How would a new tech prove itself if manufacturers aren’t allowed to use it in their product? If customers aren’t allowed to try something new, they are never going to be able to determine if customers prefer it. The only way to ‘prove’ that a tech is better than another is by letting the market decide.
    - samus 5y ago
      Dropping a Memorandum of Understanding is almost for free. Putting a law out of commission (pun not intended) is a completely different story!
- taxyz23 5y ago
  If basically everyone follows, then why require it and shut off or slow down future innovation? Regulations like this are nearly always obsolete by the time they are implemented.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
That is a really, really obvious problem, so why do you think you are the first person on the planet who ever thought of it? And that nobody addressed it? > But forcing everyone to use it until the end of time is ridiculous. Correct, it is ridiculous you think anyone did that. > Imagine if they had done this a few years ago, and the micro-B connector was mandated. We would never have gotten usb-C. They did. We do have usb-c.

raxxorrax 5y ago

The EU has neither the authority nor the competency to lay out such identity frameworks and I would say they would decrease security in any case. This is again about surveillance and attempts to get control on information. HTTPS basic auth is secure and should always be an option. There, perfect interop. There is not enough trust and political currency to accept such measures in my opinion. Formalized ID systems seem to net more attack vectors than what we currently have.