5 ms·

I worked for my government, in the EU, and participated in the creation of such laws. The vague wording and the complexity is here to give the legislator a lot

I worked for my government, in the EU, and participated in the creation of such laws. The vague wording and the complexity is here to give the legislator a lot of freedom in the interpretation of the text. Bear in mind that those “technical” laws aren't written by MPs – they are written by lobbyists and private consultants like McKinsey, in cooperation with high-tier civil servants. Therefore, they usually follow an agenda that may be hidden or dishonest relative to their initial aim. I'll take an example: you write a law relaxing the legal definition of what “chocolate” is. It happens that the MP in charge of this law has a Cadbury plant in its constituency – by pure chance, of course! The law and the debate will follow talking points about letting chocolate makers innovate and try new recipes. In reality, Cadbury et al. want to cut costs by introducing cheaper ingredients and reducing quality. Once automatic screening is in place, it's effortless for the government to start repressing political dissent, to spy on the citizen's economic activity, and so on. In many EU countries, such as France, for instance, an authoritarian government would need to vote very few laws to completely shut down dissent : all the legislative weapons have already been voted by well-meaning and deluded MPs. The European commission is as hypocritical as it can be. Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, but wants every EU citizen to surrender their private communications. What is next?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel than modern France. See what's happening in Israel, not even the omnipotent Netanyahu could go against the huge popular protests. > Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, That's the same right everyone has in Europe. Nobody can be forced to publicly show their private conversations. Only the authorities can ask for them in the case of a trial, if a judge gives the authorization. > but wants every EU citizen to surrender their private communications. That's a non sequitur. The law is not about "surrender your private communications", first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy, privacy still exists without secrecy, and even if it was, Von der Leyen (that I dislike, to use an euphemism) would be subject to it too. The real World does not work like Gotham City.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > privacy still exists without secrecy It can, but if the goal is to —in one fell swoop— remove both secrecy (encryption) and privacy (scanning of de—encrypted information) then clearly that isn’t true.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    So basically the privacy is removed the moment privacy is removed (the scanning bit), not when secrecy is.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflating the two arguments is either out of confusion or bad faith.
    - raverbashing 4y ago
      > When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, Yes there is. What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen there any less secret.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel than modern France. See what's happening in Israel, not even the omnipotent Netanyahu could go against the huge popular protests. > Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, That's the same right everyone has in Europe. Nobody can be forced to publicly show their private conversations. Only the authorities can ask for them in the case of a trial, if a judge gives the authorization. > but wants every EU citizen to surrender their private communications. That's a non sequitur. The law is not about "surrender your private communications", first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy, privacy still exists without secrecy, and even if it was, Von der Leyen (that I dislike, to use an euphemism) would be subject to it too. The real World does not work like Gotham City.

Aeolun 4y ago
> privacy still exists without secrecy It can, but if the goal is to —in one fell swoop— remove both secrecy (encryption) and privacy (scanning of de—encrypted information) then clearly that isn’t true.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  So basically the privacy is removed the moment privacy is removed (the scanning bit), not when secrecy is.
raverbashing 4y ago
> first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflating the two arguments is either out of confusion or bad faith.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, Yes there is. What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen there any less secret.