3 ms·

Ah, so every CA in Europe just lost trustworthiness due to their government. Delist European CAs until they get their shit together.

ls612 3y ago
When Kazakhstan tried pulling this the browser vendors did that to them and were able to because Kazakhstan couldn’t imprison their executives and employees to compel compliance. The EU on the other hand can and will.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  How would the EU punish Google, who is an American company? At most, the EU affects things within its borders. They have no say on the greater Internet. The EU had better invest in its own browser if it intends to outlaw encryption.
  - ls612 3y ago
    By locking up it's executives in Europe or seizing it's property in Europe. Both of which it has in far greater quantities than Kazakhstan did.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Ah, I see. So at minimum, they'd need strategies to move assets out of the region while complying to some degree, until the assets were safe.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    A better example would be Brave or another smaller organisation. Big multinationals have employees and assets everywhere that can be threatened. However smaller organisations operating from a single jurisdiction can only be threatened by their local government (or at least with the consent of their local government).
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      I thought about Brave, but because they repackage Blink, the EU could choose to go upstream and target the engine rather than the browser, and Google ends up part of the equation anyway. Firefox is in the US, right? Pale Moon is too iirc and they forked Gecko to make Goanna.
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        It's very hard for legal tools to change open source engines. Even if they compelled code changes from the engine maker, the downstream browsers could modify the engine code before putting it in their browsers. This is especially true for configuration type changes, like which certificate authorities to trust or which websites to blacklist.

ls612 3y ago

When Kazakhstan tried pulling this the browser vendors did that to them and were able to because Kazakhstan couldn’t imprison their executives and employees to compel compliance. The EU on the other hand can and will.

zlg_codes 3y ago
How would the EU punish Google, who is an American company? At most, the EU affects things within its borders. They have no say on the greater Internet. The EU had better invest in its own browser if it intends to outlaw encryption.
- ls612 3y ago
  By locking up it's executives in Europe or seizing it's property in Europe. Both of which it has in far greater quantities than Kazakhstan did.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Ah, I see. So at minimum, they'd need strategies to move assets out of the region while complying to some degree, until the assets were safe.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  A better example would be Brave or another smaller organisation. Big multinationals have employees and assets everywhere that can be threatened. However smaller organisations operating from a single jurisdiction can only be threatened by their local government (or at least with the consent of their local government).
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    I thought about Brave, but because they repackage Blink, the EU could choose to go upstream and target the engine rather than the browser, and Google ends up part of the equation anyway. Firefox is in the US, right? Pale Moon is too iirc and they forked Gecko to make Goanna.
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      It's very hard for legal tools to change open source engines. Even if they compelled code changes from the engine maker, the downstream browsers could modify the engine code before putting it in their browsers. This is especially true for configuration type changes, like which certificate authorities to trust or which websites to blacklist.