4 ms·

I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they

by pton_xd 3mo ago

I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.

ggirelli 3mo ago
Not "access to ALL of your data". Also, as confusing as it might be, it is in the nature of EU (at least IMHO) to not have a clear position over multiple legislatures.
- varispeed 3mo ago
  This is a wedge.
munk-a 3mo ago
The EU's position on privacy seems pretty consistent to me - they're against your data being monetized by private entities but not against building governmental tools to monitor private entities. In good faith this could be summarized as "Personal data should be used for public safety but not for profit" - but that philosophy is definitely a strong contrast with the basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.
- watwut 3mo ago
  > basic American philosophy towards civil liberties. Errrr, america does not look like country that cares about that. It does care about liberties of rich companies tho.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Exactly, that is the American philosophy being referenced.
mhitza 3mo ago
Maybe big tech weren't good a lobbying bureaucrats against GDPR but got better at lobbying in the EU for this. There's also been a slight shift towards authoritarianism in the last decade, which naturally love the possibilities of stricter communication control. Children protection and russian propaganda are the tried and tested covers at enforcing age verification, message scanning, and probably any future pan-european surveillance network.
JoshTriplett 3mo ago
I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)
- sscaryterry 3mo ago
  Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
  - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
    We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct.
    - sscaryterry 3mo ago
      If you are purist and you don't live in the real world with real evils. I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.
      - john_strinlai 3mo ago
        >I don't want pedophiles to have privacy. that is why police already have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile.
        sscaryterry 3mo ago
        The existing mechanisms are inadequate or not fit for 2026. Hence this discussion. You are agreeing with me :)
        john_strinlai 3mo ago
inigyou 3mo ago
The one that passed doesn't give them access to anything. It is different from the scary one.
bossyTeacher 3mo ago
It is simple. GDPR is aimed at private entities misusing your data. Keyword private.
- spwa4 3mo ago
  Not even that. The government outsources a lot of their functions, so a LOT of organizations have access to extremely private data, where necessary. For example, Palantir gets access to "large and diverse (government) databases with Dutch citizens’ data for analysis" (including mental health treatment data) under the GPDR to help police in the Netherlands do terror investigations (from 2012 to 2019). I'm sure you can appreciate the wisdom and privacy-enhancement in that just as much as me! There are large lists of private organizations that get access to government data about citizens ... every country has multiple (public and secret ones). Oh, they also "failed to mention" this to parliament, and this was only discovered after a journalist got a tipoff and requested financial data about the deal ... for about 5 years. Of course, there was never even the slightest investigation into this. https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controversial-ai-intelligence-software-american-palantir https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controve... (paywalled) https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebruikt-omstreden-software-van-palantir~bc93fb06/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebru...
coldtea 3mo ago
There's no position on privacy. They make whatever laws the corporate laws and elites like, and that furthers their own bureucratic reach. GDPR is a good way to create a "compliance moat" against smaller players, and to give the EU bureucrats more power.
joe463369 3mo ago
The unquestioned view in certain circles - including here - is that when the EU/UK does something that chips away at people's online privacy, there's un ulterior motive. It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.
- vlian2088 3mo ago
  >It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - joe463369 3mo ago
    > except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards. Where would you imagine western European rapists could be deported to? Presumably Fred West, Jimmy Savile, Ted Heath, Gary Glitter, Richard Huckle, Ian Watkins, Stewart Hall and Fred Talbot need to be sent back to Pakistan or similar where they learnt their wicked ways. You daft get
- budududuroiu 3mo ago
  Other governments across the Channel also want to protect children online, while at the same time dismissing thousands of reports of grooming, for fear of being labelled "racist".
- MaKey 3mo ago
  This is being heavily pushed by certain actors so it's not just politicians wanting to do something about CSAM: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/bi/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... Many abuse survivors and youth advocates strongly oppose Chat Control; here is one voice detailing why: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-support-privacy-invasive-measures-tackle-child-hanff https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-support-privacy-in...
varispeed 3mo ago
[flagged]
arjie 3mo ago
It seems fairly consistent, doesn't it? CC 2.0 is that the government must be able to access things, and GDPR has a legal basis exemption that is defacto used every time by government entities. The general idea is that private parties cannot consent to things to each other but that residents of a place consent to being governed by the government. e.g. you can't consent to having someone jail you; but you also can't opt out of jail by the government. Personally, the politics of Europe is really not for me, but I can see why others might find it attractive. In the end, history will show us which path is adaptive.
Puts 3mo ago
The thing is that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights privacy and the right to private communication is a basic human right. And GDPR was literally enacted to enforce this human right. Now one basic principle of democracy is that supreme courts are superior to the people in power. Someone needs to watch the lawmakers so to say. Because it could actually be that the European commission enacts laws that are illegal. And Chat Control 2.0 could actually be illegal because it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, somebody has to take them to The Court of Justice of the European Union to test it.
nurumaik 3mo ago
Very clear position: they want absolute control over both companies and citizens

by pton_xd 3mo ago

I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.

ggirelli 3mo ago

Not "access to ALL of your data". Also, as confusing as it might be, it is in the nature of EU (at least IMHO) to not have a clear position over multiple legislatures.

varispeed 3mo ago
This is a wedge.

munk-a 3mo ago

The EU's position on privacy seems pretty consistent to me - they're against your data being monetized by private entities but not against building governmental tools to monitor private entities. In good faith this could be summarized as "Personal data should be used for public safety but not for profit" - but that philosophy is definitely a strong contrast with the basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.

watwut 3mo ago
> basic American philosophy towards civil liberties. Errrr, america does not look like country that cares about that. It does care about liberties of rich companies tho.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Exactly, that is the American philosophy being referenced.

mhitza 3mo ago

Maybe big tech weren't good a lobbying bureaucrats against GDPR but got better at lobbying in the EU for this. There's also been a slight shift towards authoritarianism in the last decade, which naturally love the possibilities of stricter communication control. Children protection and russian propaganda are the tried and tested covers at enforcing age verification, message scanning, and probably any future pan-european surveillance network.

JoshTriplett 3mo ago

I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)

sscaryterry 3mo ago
Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
- JoshTriplett 3mo ago
  We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct.
  - sscaryterry 3mo ago
    If you are purist and you don't live in the real world with real evils. I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.
    - john_strinlai 3mo ago
      >I don't want pedophiles to have privacy. that is why police already have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile.
      - sscaryterry 3mo ago
        The existing mechanisms are inadequate or not fit for 2026. Hence this discussion. You are agreeing with me :)
        john_strinlai 3mo ago

inigyou 3mo ago

The one that passed doesn't give them access to anything. It is different from the scary one.

bossyTeacher 3mo ago

It is simple. GDPR is aimed at private entities misusing your data. Keyword private.

spwa4 3mo ago
Not even that. The government outsources a lot of their functions, so a LOT of organizations have access to extremely private data, where necessary. For example, Palantir gets access to "large and diverse (government) databases with Dutch citizens’ data for analysis" (including mental health treatment data) under the GPDR to help police in the Netherlands do terror investigations (from 2012 to 2019). I'm sure you can appreciate the wisdom and privacy-enhancement in that just as much as me! There are large lists of private organizations that get access to government data about citizens ... every country has multiple (public and secret ones). Oh, they also "failed to mention" this to parliament, and this was only discovered after a journalist got a tipoff and requested financial data about the deal ... for about 5 years. Of course, there was never even the slightest investigation into this. https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controversial-ai-intelligence-software-american-palantir https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controve... (paywalled) https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebruikt-omstreden-software-van-palantir~bc93fb06/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebru...

coldtea 3mo ago

There's no position on privacy. They make whatever laws the corporate laws and elites like, and that furthers their own bureucratic reach. GDPR is a good way to create a "compliance moat" against smaller players, and to give the EU bureucrats more power.

joe463369 3mo ago

The unquestioned view in certain circles - including here - is that when the EU/UK does something that chips away at people's online privacy, there's un ulterior motive. It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.

vlian2088 3mo ago
>It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- joe463369 3mo ago
  > except that honest-to-God child rapists get extremely lenient sentences in Western Europe and rarely (if ever) get deported afterwards. Where would you imagine western European rapists could be deported to? Presumably Fred West, Jimmy Savile, Ted Heath, Gary Glitter, Richard Huckle, Ian Watkins, Stewart Hall and Fred Talbot need to be sent back to Pakistan or similar where they learnt their wicked ways. You daft get
budududuroiu 3mo ago
Other governments across the Channel also want to protect children online, while at the same time dismissing thousands of reports of grooming, for fear of being labelled "racist".
MaKey 3mo ago
This is being heavily pushed by certain actors so it's not just politicians wanting to do something about CSAM: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/bi/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... Many abuse survivors and youth advocates strongly oppose Chat Control; here is one voice detailing why: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-support-privacy-invasive-measures-tackle-child-hanff https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-dont-support-privacy-in...

varispeed 3mo ago

[flagged]

arjie 3mo ago

It seems fairly consistent, doesn't it? CC 2.0 is that the government must be able to access things, and GDPR has a legal basis exemption that is defacto used every time by government entities. The general idea is that private parties cannot consent to things to each other but that residents of a place consent to being governed by the government. e.g. you can't consent to having someone jail you; but you also can't opt out of jail by the government. Personally, the politics of Europe is really not for me, but I can see why others might find it attractive. In the end, history will show us which path is adaptive.

Puts 3mo ago

The thing is that according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights privacy and the right to private communication is a basic human right. And GDPR was literally enacted to enforce this human right. Now one basic principle of democracy is that supreme courts are superior to the people in power. Someone needs to watch the lawmakers so to say. Because it could actually be that the European commission enacts laws that are illegal. And Chat Control 2.0 could actually be illegal because it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, somebody has to take them to The Court of Justice of the European Union to test it.

nurumaik 3mo ago

Very clear position: they want absolute control over both companies and citizens