Piani di protezione: accesso legale integrato per tutti i dispositivi venduti nell’UE
https://i.redd.it/ksl108r2nrjf1.jpeg
di Dry_Row_7050
Piani di protezione: accesso legale integrato per tutti i dispositivi venduti nell’UE
https://i.redd.it/ksl108r2nrjf1.jpeg
di Dry_Row_7050
31 commenti
Source is [Recommendations of the High Level Group on Access to Data for Effective Law Enforcement](https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1105a0ef-535c-44a7-a6d4-a8478fce1d29_en)
You can see the EU quoting that horrible plan everywhere
First link on this page https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/high-level-group-hlg-access-data-effective-law-enforcement_en
And here
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/lawful-access-data/data-retention_en
Here too
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/lawful-access-data_en
EU launched a new impact assesment on this plan too, and they are asking for feedback
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14680-Impact-assessment-on-retention-of-data-by-service-providers-for-criminal-proceedings-/public-consultation_en
I refuse to believe all of these worldwide attacks on internet privacy happening at the same time
Pretty grim reading. No doubt it’ll change a lot before it starts to go down the legislation path, but the intent and direction is undeniably terrifying.
Ah “future proof” – so impossible…
Never install or update your OS or update apps?
Some piece of software will be installed on future devices to allow direct access to your data before it gets encrypted. Permanent Law Intercept on device level..
Seriously, who are these fucks that keep proposing this bullshit? Better expand the prison space and actually give dangerous people longer sentences instead of proposing something that can get into the hands of right wing lunatics, but tbf, it doesn‘t seem like these eu politicians are sane people that work for civilians.
I don’t see that one passing the courts – tries to implement earlier data retention acts has repeatedly been struck down and this one seems way worse in every way.
Removal of encryption for phone backups, age verification to protect and monitor government/lobbying interests rather than children, ChatControl 2.0, now legally mandated hardware backdoors everywhere? Aside from the obligatory “WCGW” – when are we finally dropping the collective “nothing to hide” fallacy and stand up against this? This tech is not being introduced to protect us. Please!
Sure why not do the same for everyone’s home? This is insane.
totalitarian government at the doorstep. no more need to point fingers at russia or china.
Straight from the *”it’s not totalitarian horseshit if we are doing it!”* department. Utterly sickening.
Wonder what’s the company behind this…
All devices “sold in the EU”. Boy the Amazon US is gonna have a hard time fulfilling all the orders for phones to the EU.
First of all : Go and leave a feedback [https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14680-Impact-assessment-on-retention-of-data-by-service-providers-for-criminal-proceedings-/public-consultation_en](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14680-Impact-assessment-on-retention-of-data-by-service-providers-for-criminal-proceedings-/public-consultation_en)
then read the documents from the observer bodies :
[https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4572a321-1657-4f5b-a14b-509520207720_en?filename=Written%20submission%20EDR.pdf](https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4572a321-1657-4f5b-a14b-509520207720_en?filename=Written%20submission%20EDR.pdf)
[https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5cb30e40-43aa-4841-8771-6f6ddea2f7a1_en?filename=Written%20submission%20CCBE.pdf](https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5cb30e40-43aa-4841-8771-6f6ddea2f7a1_en?filename=Written%20submission%20CCBE.pdf)
[https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b316e526-610f-40cc-b465-87b8f9477a2f_en?filename=Written%20submission%20EuroISPA.pdf](https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b316e526-610f-40cc-b465-87b8f9477a2f_en?filename=Written%20submission%20EuroISPA.pdf)
In practice, they have already **torn the proposal to pieces**, but the conclusions of our dear experts are that it is a wonderful idea and the commission must implement it as soon as possible ignoring the observer concerns of unlawfulness.
Blatantly ongoing lobbying effort.
This plan only violates international human rights, but who cares, right?
Also, “lawful access” is a textbook example of doublespeak, they’re hiding behind it as if it meant anything from an entity that already proved they’re willing to go to the extremes.
This HLG should be brought to the light and they with their supporters should be permanently barred from holding any political position.
I remember when a lack of transparency was the problem, now it’s all open for everyone to see but nobody gives a shit.
Soooo, Europeans will no longer use European market solutions for communication. Nice. Offshore all the data, because you deny people privacy 🙂
People will hand over data to the Chinese government any day, rather than their own government, because the Chinese government won’t put them in sail for criticizing the local government, but the local government will – see UK for present day proof.
Sure, let’s add that to the security and privacy nightmare in the making.
Just like with chat control, politicians don’t think about the security loopholes they are creating to be exploited against themselves (maybe reasoning it as something that can harm them is beneficial to the cause).
Don’t they care that if they buy a new phone, it will have this “lawful access by design” bullshit included? Or their security cameras in their houses, or their new smart TV? Any additional vulnerability added to software can be exploited. How long before we see videos of politicians published online having sex with their mistresses or jerking off or simply discussing something they felt was in private? How long before these politicians will be extorted using this law?
Even if the politicians are in favor of more control and government oversight, why would they want to impose this shit on themselves as well?
And no, they cannot create an exemption only for them. No product manufacturer is going to create two versions of the same product, no infrastructure will be setup to enable sales of the product version without spyware either. These politicians will just be sheep, like the rest of us, when it comes to vulnerabilities. Both in this proposal as well as chat control and the other big brother bills.
This will be so abused by music, gaming and movie industry to fine anyone.
european commision:
we are democracy.. tralalala tralalala….
Actually North Korea might have less control than this
So whats supposed to be so evil about China then? With this there’s hardly any difference.
I never heard any comments from them on the fact that they create the most desirable thing in a crime world ever: a skeleton key. It will eventually be created. Absolutely no way in hell it isn’t considered by someone! And when it will be created they are not gonna announce it, it will be a collossal security breach that will be absolutely silent
I want the fucking names of people from that High Level Group !
I get that you can’t post the full text to draw attention to a few points but you should make it more obvious that text was removed. There’s no need to try to make this look worse than it already is, that detracts from your point if anything.
Here’s the full text of the edited points:
> 22 . Developing a technology roadmap that brings together technology, cybersecurity, privacy,
standardisation and security experts and ensures adequate coordination e.g. potentially
through a permanent structure, in order to implement **lawful access by design** in all relevant
technologies in line with the needs expressed by law enforcement, ensuring at the same time
strong security and cybersecurity and providing for the full respect of legal obligations on
lawful access. According to the HLG, law enforcement authorities should contribute to the
definition of requirements, but it should not be their role to impose specific solutions on
companies so that they can provide lawful access to data for criminal investigative purposes
without compromising security
> 25 . Conducting a **comprehensive mapping** of the current legislation in Member States to detail
the legal responsibilities of digital hardware and software manufacturers to comply with data
requests from law enforcement. It would also take into account specific scenarios and
requirements that compel companies to access devices, in compliance also with CJEU case-
law and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The goal should be to develop an
**EU-level handbook** on that basis, and depending on the aforementioned mapping, to promote
the approximation of legislation within this area, and to develop binding industry standards
for devices brought to market in the EU, to integrate lawful access
under 27. point vi was omitted:
> v. establish at the very least an obligation for companies to retain data sufficient to
ensure that any user can be clearly identified (e.g. IP address and port number),
>vi. in full compliance with data protection and privacy rules.
point 32 isn’t even that long
> 32 . Considering setting **obligations on service providers** to turn on or turn off certain functions
in their services to obtain certain information after receiving a warrant (for example storing
geolocation of a specific user after s/he is targeted by a lawful request).
It’s like the EU is on a course to turn everyone into a eurosceptic. For all the great the EU has offered its citizens in terms of consumer protection and privacy regulations, these chat control and blatant privacy violations undo all of that.
Talk with everyone you know. Then we protest.
Fck them all. It’s not about kids – it’s about pernament invigilation and control.
Is this how fast we forget Stasi and free europa?
Much better than previous iterations but several aspects are misleading (not borderline fake news though)
The group is composed of representatives of Member States and EU security organisations (EUROPOL, EPPO, FRONTEX, etc.). See Article 3 of the decision establishing the group:
https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/foi/848493/document11-commissiondecisionof6-6-2023.pdf
The image is heavily redacted (understandable since the group provideed 49 recommendations).
Reading the recommendations together gives a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of what they recommend overall. You can see the recommendations from page 15:
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1105a0ef-535c-44a7-a6d4-a8478fce1d29_en?filename=Recommendations%20of%20the%20HLG%20on%20Access%20to%20Data%20for%20Effective%20Law%20Enforcement_en.pdf
As an example for the misleading part. Recommendation 32 in its entirety is: “Considering setting obligations on service providers to turn on or turn off certain functions in their services to obtain certain information after receiving a warrant (for example storing geolocation of a specific user after s/he is targeted by a lawful request).”
The text requires a warrant for such actions while what OP shared has a very different meaning.
Point 31: “Making sure that user data retained for commercial and business purposes is effectively accessible for law enforcement under relevant safeguards. ”
Should be read with 27 (in the image above), 28:
“Categorising data on the basis of its purpose (identifying, locating, establishing the online activity of a subject of interest), although some work is needed to translate the purposes into clear technical requirements. ”
And 29: “Ensuring that access to data is targeted and differentiated depending on data categories or on specific categories of crime (e.g. crimes that only happen on the Internet) or on the basis of the threat to victims. ”
Which effectively requires the data that would be accessible to law enforcement to be targeted, differentiated and clearly identified.
“Lawful access” = access by the device owner, right? Right?
Fuck this. The idea of the eu was about freedom not the opposite