3 ms·

For now. Android is open source, except for specifically the bits that anyone who cares about being sovereign in the face of US interests would want to replace

by ben_w 11mo ago

For now. Android is open source, except for specifically the bits that anyone who cares about being sovereign in the face of US interests would want to replace anyway. Also, last I checked the phones themselves are either made by Foxconn, BYD, or a few Taiwanese-owned factories, so while yes Europe has a problem with the physical devices, it's the same problem the US already has.

jeroenhd 11mo ago
These apps require remote attestation which is almost always implemented through Google Play. In theory, if you get on the US' annoyance list (i.e. if you're involved in investigating Israel's genocide), Google could be made to kill your phone's ability to use the EU's app. That's what the bank cards are for, of course; they don't need a phone.
- ben_w 11mo ago
  The cards help, certainly. I think the EU (both as a union and as member states) are at risk of the USA doing shenanigans here, particularly due to Project 2025 cutting out the checks and balances that ought to slow down the Executive branch, where the USA moving as slowly as it normally would, would give the EU time to move. But also, I do also think the various European governments are taking the threat of the US doing nonsense things seriously, and are doing the things to mitigate those risks as best as possible.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  > That's what the bank cards are for, of course; they don't need a phone. You mean VISA cards, with a few extra apps (that's what, say, Worldcom is, an app on a VISA card) the data sent over Cisco equipment to IBM compatible servers with encryption via chips developed through VISA by American manufacturers? I still see some issues there. Oh, and VISA had to demand Worldcom be moved to Switzerland, to prevent EU countries from let's call it "using it in negotiation" against each other. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that in a few years, or as soon as the Ukraine war ends one way or another, central banks are going to demand SWIFT moves out of Brussels as well. Call it a shot in the dark. I get that it's become difficult to trust the US recently for the reason we all know. But you shouldn't forget: these institutions need to be trusted by every central bank ... and "trusted by every central bank" is not the EU either (well it especially isn't France or Germany, who effectively control the EU)
spwa4 11mo ago
It means a few US companies have the power to just turn off European payment systems, and frankly China probably as well, before and after this effort and there's nothing the ECB can do about it. And that means, they can't stop Trump from doing it. What was the sole purpose of introducing this again? Preventing that. This doesn't help. And EU countries have already demonstrated ... they had a near-monopoly on everything really. On chips, interconnects, cell phones, cars, optics, planes, satellite internet, ... but they traded it for a bit of money. If they want it back, it's of course going to cost EU states a lot of money, which they're not willing to do. So why do they say they're going to do this? They, as in the rest of the EU organization, is not willing to put in the effort. In the short term it's slightly cheaper to have Google and Apple do this, and the ECB will have to live with the fact that if Trump decides all EU payments stop ... they stop. Funny how the US has never done that unilaterally, always through the UN, and the ECB has done that, without asking anyone (to Greece, and to Italy, and if we're brutally honest, to a bunch of African states too). So I don't feel particularly sorry for the ECB here. But I must ask: given that this doesn't make 1 mm progress towards their stated goal ... qui bono?
- ben_w 11mo ago
  > What was the sole purpose of introducing this again? Preventing that. This doesn't help. False. Aside from the way the announced new payment system works with cards and doesn't actually need, merely also supports, apps… Consider the MVP of a house: walls, door, roof. Walls without a roof, without a door but simply a hole where a door might go, will let animals (or thieves) wander in, and be cold at night and not keep the sun off you in the day. A door without walls or a roof is, what, an art installation? A roof, supported by pillars without any walls or door, will keep you dry and will keep the sun off, but not keep the wind out, nor animals, nor thieves. What the EU has done here is like any one of those three: necessary, not sufficient. (Probably most like the roof given cards work without apps, but this was just the first analogy that came to mind, roll with it). If the institutions of the EU ordered the creation of handsets (it doesn't have the power to do so, it's much closer to being a glorified free trade agreement with a light sprinkle of democratic self-updating to the rules of that FTA, than to being a federal government), but forgot to make a payment system, this would also still fail. Collectively we also have to make office software and email systems, as demonstrated by the result of USA sanctions against ICC judges. > And EU countries have already demonstrated ... they had a near-monopoly on everything really. On chips, interconnects, cell phones, cars, optics, planes, satellite internet, ... but they traded it for a bit of money. Oh god no. We never had anything like a monopoly on most of those things, and still have one on some others. We had — still have — decent players in aerospace; for space specifically it's more that SpaceX has outcompeted everyone worldwide including other USA companies than like the EU being behind. The EU's planes are still going fine, but Europe was never a monopoly there in the first place. Pre-Starlink satellite internet was always a joke (or emergency fallback), but the players were never monopolists. ASML and Zeiss are still even now major supply-chain players, but that's the closest the EU has ever been to a monopoly on this stuff (Zeiss more than ASML). You could say we had and lost leads in interconnects though. Perhaps, though it's borderline, early mobile phones. > In the short term it's slightly cheaper to have Google and Apple do this, and the ECB will have to live with the fact that if Trump decides all EU payments stop ... they stop. Or this is one of several independent steps, it only works when all are ready, and they are willing to spend the money. > Funny how the US has never done that unilaterally, always through the UN, https://apnews.com/article/international-court-sanctions-trump-icc-hague-4cdefe4de067432f6cdb9b137908c463 https://apnews.com/article/international-court-sanctions-tru... > But I must ask: given that this doesn't make 1 mm progress towards their stated goal ... qui bono? Consider that you may be wrong.

by ben_w 11mo ago

jeroenhd 11mo ago

These apps require remote attestation which is almost always implemented through Google Play. In theory, if you get on the US' annoyance list (i.e. if you're involved in investigating Israel's genocide), Google could be made to kill your phone's ability to use the EU's app. That's what the bank cards are for, of course; they don't need a phone.

ben_w 11mo ago
The cards help, certainly. I think the EU (both as a union and as member states) are at risk of the USA doing shenanigans here, particularly due to Project 2025 cutting out the checks and balances that ought to slow down the Executive branch, where the USA moving as slowly as it normally would, would give the EU time to move. But also, I do also think the various European governments are taking the threat of the US doing nonsense things seriously, and are doing the things to mitigate those risks as best as possible.
spwa4 11mo ago
> That's what the bank cards are for, of course; they don't need a phone. You mean VISA cards, with a few extra apps (that's what, say, Worldcom is, an app on a VISA card) the data sent over Cisco equipment to IBM compatible servers with encryption via chips developed through VISA by American manufacturers? I still see some issues there. Oh, and VISA had to demand Worldcom be moved to Switzerland, to prevent EU countries from let's call it "using it in negotiation" against each other. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that in a few years, or as soon as the Ukraine war ends one way or another, central banks are going to demand SWIFT moves out of Brussels as well. Call it a shot in the dark. I get that it's become difficult to trust the US recently for the reason we all know. But you shouldn't forget: these institutions need to be trusted by every central bank ... and "trusted by every central bank" is not the EU either (well it especially isn't France or Germany, who effectively control the EU)

spwa4 11mo ago

It means a few US companies have the power to just turn off European payment systems, and frankly China probably as well, before and after this effort and there's nothing the ECB can do about it. And that means, they can't stop Trump from doing it. What was the sole purpose of introducing this again? Preventing that. This doesn't help. And EU countries have already demonstrated ... they had a near-monopoly on everything really. On chips, interconnects, cell phones, cars, optics, planes, satellite internet, ... but they traded it for a bit of money. If they want it back, it's of course going to cost EU states a lot of money, which they're not willing to do. So why do they say they're going to do this? They, as in the rest of the EU organization, is not willing to put in the effort. In the short term it's slightly cheaper to have Google and Apple do this, and the ECB will have to live with the fact that if Trump decides all EU payments stop ... they stop. Funny how the US has never done that unilaterally, always through the UN, and the ECB has done that, without asking anyone (to Greece, and to Italy, and if we're brutally honest, to a bunch of African states too). So I don't feel particularly sorry for the ECB here. But I must ask: given that this doesn't make 1 mm progress towards their stated goal ... qui bono?

ben_w 11mo ago
> What was the sole purpose of introducing this again? Preventing that. This doesn't help. False. Aside from the way the announced new payment system works with cards and doesn't actually need, merely also supports, apps… Consider the MVP of a house: walls, door, roof. Walls without a roof, without a door but simply a hole where a door might go, will let animals (or thieves) wander in, and be cold at night and not keep the sun off you in the day. A door without walls or a roof is, what, an art installation? A roof, supported by pillars without any walls or door, will keep you dry and will keep the sun off, but not keep the wind out, nor animals, nor thieves. What the EU has done here is like any one of those three: necessary, not sufficient. (Probably most like the roof given cards work without apps, but this was just the first analogy that came to mind, roll with it). If the institutions of the EU ordered the creation of handsets (it doesn't have the power to do so, it's much closer to being a glorified free trade agreement with a light sprinkle of democratic self-updating to the rules of that FTA, than to being a federal government), but forgot to make a payment system, this would also still fail. Collectively we also have to make office software and email systems, as demonstrated by the result of USA sanctions against ICC judges. > And EU countries have already demonstrated ... they had a near-monopoly on everything really. On chips, interconnects, cell phones, cars, optics, planes, satellite internet, ... but they traded it for a bit of money. Oh god no. We never had anything like a monopoly on most of those things, and still have one on some others. We had — still have — decent players in aerospace; for space specifically it's more that SpaceX has outcompeted everyone worldwide including other USA companies than like the EU being behind. The EU's planes are still going fine, but Europe was never a monopoly there in the first place. Pre-Starlink satellite internet was always a joke (or emergency fallback), but the players were never monopolists. ASML and Zeiss are still even now major supply-chain players, but that's the closest the EU has ever been to a monopoly on this stuff (Zeiss more than ASML). You could say we had and lost leads in interconnects though. Perhaps, though it's borderline, early mobile phones. > In the short term it's slightly cheaper to have Google and Apple do this, and the ECB will have to live with the fact that if Trump decides all EU payments stop ... they stop. Or this is one of several independent steps, it only works when all are ready, and they are willing to spend the money. > Funny how the US has never done that unilaterally, always through the UN, https://apnews.com/article/international-court-sanctions-trump-icc-hague-4cdefe4de067432f6cdb9b137908c463 https://apnews.com/article/international-court-sanctions-tru... > But I must ask: given that this doesn't make 1 mm progress towards their stated goal ... qui bono? Consider that you may be wrong.