6 ms·

Saying let the courts decide when there is massive ambiguity for the small projects and developers just means that many of us (I know I will) will region block

Saying let the courts decide when there is massive ambiguity for the small projects and developers just means that many of us (I know I will) will region block the EU until some one else deals with the court system and provides clarity for the rest us. It is way, way better for legislators to provide intent and clarity then to make things uncertain and ambiguous for the courts to decide. If they truly aren't going to care about a single corporate committer, then lay that out, or if there is a maximum donation threshold (indexed to inflation) of what can be considered reasonable corporate donations, then specify. Otherwise, those of us who can't afford to be caught in a legal battle on another continent will just shut things down. That results in less software overall for the EU to use and innovate on. Perhaps that will result in better battle hardened software for the EU in general, but considering how much OSS has a huge dependency chain problem (many of them small projects), I'm doubtful that will occur anytime soon.

smarx007 3y ago
I don't see a reason to do this (region blocking whole EU). The legislation has a very similar enforcement to GDPR – did you get a 15M USD fine for Google Analytics on your blog? What's similar is that: 1. There will be authorities overseeing this. Court action will not be the first step (Europe is not a litigious place as opposed to some other jurisdictions). 2. First step would be a corrective action to "Ensure that the manufacturer remedies the cybersecurity vulnerabilities" [1]. Essentially, like in GDPR, where you can email the blog owner or the authority and complain that it uses Google Analytics. The first step would be to tell "stop". Similarly, the first step would be a demand from a user and/or authority that you address a CVE on your project. 3. Only then if you ignore this, there could be a court case or fines. If you are really afraid, you can stop offering your software/libs in Europe at stage 2. And I am quite certain that it would carry a minimal risk (though I am not a lawyer, so that we are clear). [1]: https://blog.huawei.com/2022/09/29/cyber-resilience-act-enhances-cybersecurity-digital-products-eu/ https://blog.huawei.com/2022/09/29/cyber-resilience-act-enha...
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  I did not get 15M USD fine for Google Analytics on my blog. Instead, I am working for state agencies that are shy of using even locally installed Mamoto for web analytics, out of fear to collect too much PIIs because of GDPR. It is a daily tax on my mental sanity and a real problem for fellow citizens because of worsened service. GDPR had two effects on the industry in EU: 1. Chilling effect. None wants to do things with GDPR considerations. Better mine bitcoins. 2. Grilling effect. There is a proliferation of DPO jobs and people landing in these jobs are making everyone's life harder because they are incompetent by definition but still want to ascertain their fake jobs and cushy salary. I looked at your other comments and your profile and I see that you have a vested interest in software lifecycle management. CRA will help grow its visibility for sure. You probably conflate your personal goals with this intellectual discussion. Still, the overwhelming majority on HN is aware of GDPR, knows at least tangentially how poorly written EU directives are and how much depends on the public opinion and "policy". It's obvious that if CPA gets adopted, it will go pretty much the same path: 1. Lobbyists will seed FUD 2. Businesses will over-protect and waste precious resources 3. Hobbyists will loose 4. The stated goal will not be achieved.
  - smarx007 3y ago
    All right, now that someone downvoted you (not me), I feel a mild obligation to respond. Regarding the ad hominem part, I invite you to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g to understand why I think our industry needs to elevate the level of our craft. And also please take a look at the actual requirements CRA puts on devs in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:864f472b-34e9-11ed-9c68-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:864f472b-... (pages 2 and 3 – yes, just those two pages* plus requirements on documentation on page 8, which could be a bit more annoying than the requirements on pp. 2 and 3). I hope you will find them reasonable for the most part. Regarding GDPR, I am indeed sad that so many people interpret it incorrectly. This happens in part due to the influence of various groups, as you say. I invite you to read the blog of https://noyb.eu/en https://noyb.eu/en to understand the spirit of GDPR (indeed, there is a thing called "data minimization" that could be the reason you find it difficult to collect more data without a solid justification; in a fun twist, §1(3)(e) of the CRA annex also mentions data minimization) and see that the progress is made slowly yet steadily. If you noticed big websites recently show the option to deny tracking cookies directly instead of "manage cookies", you got these folks to thank ( https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come ). BTW, I donate to them and think they are doing awesome work. * unless you are doing "serious stuff" (TM) as described on pages 5 and 6.

smarx007 3y ago

I don't see a reason to do this (region blocking whole EU). The legislation has a very similar enforcement to GDPR – did you get a 15M USD fine for Google Analytics on your blog? What's similar is that: 1. There will be authorities overseeing this. Court action will not be the first step (Europe is not a litigious place as opposed to some other jurisdictions). 2. First step would be a corrective action to "Ensure that the manufacturer remedies the cybersecurity vulnerabilities" [1]. Essentially, like in GDPR, where you can email the blog owner or the authority and complain that it uses Google Analytics. The first step would be to tell "stop". Similarly, the first step would be a demand from a user and/or authority that you address a CVE on your project. 3. Only then if you ignore this, there could be a court case or fines. If you are really afraid, you can stop offering your software/libs in Europe at stage 2. And I am quite certain that it would carry a minimal risk (though I am not a lawyer, so that we are clear). [1]: https://blog.huawei.com/2022/09/29/cyber-resilience-act-enhances-cybersecurity-digital-products-eu/ https://blog.huawei.com/2022/09/29/cyber-resilience-act-enha...

sam_lowry_ 3y ago
I did not get 15M USD fine for Google Analytics on my blog. Instead, I am working for state agencies that are shy of using even locally installed Mamoto for web analytics, out of fear to collect too much PIIs because of GDPR. It is a daily tax on my mental sanity and a real problem for fellow citizens because of worsened service. GDPR had two effects on the industry in EU: 1. Chilling effect. None wants to do things with GDPR considerations. Better mine bitcoins. 2. Grilling effect. There is a proliferation of DPO jobs and people landing in these jobs are making everyone's life harder because they are incompetent by definition but still want to ascertain their fake jobs and cushy salary. I looked at your other comments and your profile and I see that you have a vested interest in software lifecycle management. CRA will help grow its visibility for sure. You probably conflate your personal goals with this intellectual discussion. Still, the overwhelming majority on HN is aware of GDPR, knows at least tangentially how poorly written EU directives are and how much depends on the public opinion and "policy". It's obvious that if CPA gets adopted, it will go pretty much the same path: 1. Lobbyists will seed FUD 2. Businesses will over-protect and waste precious resources 3. Hobbyists will loose 4. The stated goal will not be achieved.
- smarx007 3y ago
  All right, now that someone downvoted you (not me), I feel a mild obligation to respond. Regarding the ad hominem part, I invite you to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g to understand why I think our industry needs to elevate the level of our craft. And also please take a look at the actual requirements CRA puts on devs in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:864f472b-34e9-11ed-9c68-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:864f472b-... (pages 2 and 3 – yes, just those two pages* plus requirements on documentation on page 8, which could be a bit more annoying than the requirements on pp. 2 and 3). I hope you will find them reasonable for the most part. Regarding GDPR, I am indeed sad that so many people interpret it incorrectly. This happens in part due to the influence of various groups, as you say. I invite you to read the blog of https://noyb.eu/en https://noyb.eu/en to understand the spirit of GDPR (indeed, there is a thing called "data minimization" that could be the reason you find it difficult to collect more data without a solid justification; in a fun twist, §1(3)(e) of the CRA annex also mentions data minimization) and see that the progress is made slowly yet steadily. If you noticed big websites recently show the option to deny tracking cookies directly instead of "manage cookies", you got these folks to thank ( https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come ). BTW, I donate to them and think they are doing awesome work. * unless you are doing "serious stuff" (TM) as described on pages 5 and 6.