[yor_on]

Not wanting it you will find your wallet shrinking anyway. Not as a result of a vote, but as result of us not correcting our mistakes.

It's called extinction.

[yor_on]

I keep talking about repositories, I better correct myself. The correct synonym seems to be 'memory holes'

Have a read   https://theintercept.com/2016/10/23/endace-mass-surveillance-gchq-governments/



syntax

[yor_on]

Meta Data.

https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2014/07/30/how-your-innocent-smartphone-passes-on-almost-your-entire-life-to-the-secret-service/

[yor_on]

It's a very one-sided trust, isn't it?
Your government trusting you to accept this.

Like those nuclear programs, trillions on upgrading new missiles, not one single shelter built protecting from them :)

well. life is filled with jokes.

[yor_on]

Considering the way our own security agencies behave some of his criticism may even be correct, from a surveillance aspect.

Our new 'data protection laws' as they might be. I think I will question them.

" It’s no surprise that the US fight against terrorism depends crucially on the so-called 702 program, which allows the government to serve orders on social media, webmail, and electronic service providers who store their global customers’ data in the United States.

The intelligence we gather in this way protects Europe as much as the United States. Within days of the Paris attacks, the US agreed to give France direct access to much raw intelligence. Even more recently, the German government credited US (and French) intelligence with helping it thwart planned suicide bombings in Munich over the New Year holiday.

The British communications intelligence agency, GCHQ, has a deeply integrated intelligence sharing arrangement with NSA. None of these countries, let alone the smaller members of the European Union, can hope to match the American intelligence resources that are now marshaled in their defense.

So it might seem odd that the European Union poses a threat to these capabilities. Odd but true.  The problem has deep roots in Europe’s dysfunctional governance structure and in the mix of dependence and resentment that shape its relationship to the United States.  In the name of protecting privacy, the EU has long insisted that personal data may not be exported to other countries unless those countries provide “adequate” legal guarantees for privacy, and it has frequently threatened to cut off data flows to the United States because of differences in US and EU data protection law. "

Well, as one of those dysfunctional members of Europe's dysfunctional states I just  have to deeply apologize for my behavior. Current as well as in the future.

Doesn't mean I will stop.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/time-to-get-serious-about-europes-sabotage-of-us-terror-intelligence-programs/



syntax

[yor_on]

And with the UK now out of the European Union, wanting for American support I might guess that those telecommunication cables (and fiber nets) will be widely sought up, and appreciated, by all interests :)

https://theintercept.com/document/2015/09/25/200g-iris-access/
=

Had to include fiber nets. you can't do without them.

[yor_on]

Science and technology is no white lamb.

[yor_on]

Neither is bureaucracy.

"  The Data Retention Directive is the misshapen child of the aftermath of the London  terrorist  attacks  in  2005,  where  it  was  commonly  agreed  between Member  States  that  increased  control  over  telecommunications  is  essential  in order  to  nvestigate  and  prosecute  terrorism  and  organised  crime.  Despite  the strong political will of the governments of the Member States in favour of the establishment  of  EU  surveillance  tools,  there  was  a  significant  gap  in  both national and  EU legislation vis-� -vis data retention. Traffic data was either not stored systematically in the Member States or merely stored for billing purposes and in order to settle customer disputes.

In some Member States, however, such data  was  not  stored  at  all.  As  such,  traffic  data  was  not  always  available  for public  enforcement  authorities  to  use  against  criminals  for  anti-terrorism purposes. Hence, following the Brussels EU Summit of 25 and 26 March 2004, a  group  of  four  Member  States  presented  a  Draft  Framework  Decision  to  be adopted under the former Third Pillar as a criminal law measure. It is noteworthy that Sweden was one of the states that helped put forward the proposal and made an  argument  about  extending  the  scope  of  data  retention  beyond  judicial cooperation  to  all  kinds  of  police  cooperation

--------

In Sweden, the implementation of the Data Retention Directive has been delayed due to fundamental rights concerns. Sweden, which as mentioned earlier was initially in favour of Data Retention legislation, had a change of government in 2006, which resulted in minimal  implementation of the Directive. The  consequence  of  this was  that  in  2010,  the  Commission  started  infringement  proceedings  against Sweden under Article 258 TFEU and held that the government had failed to fulfil its  obligations  under  the  Directive. 

This  action  was  followed  by  further Commission proceedings against Sweden in May 2011 under Article 260 TFEU. This  time  the  Commission  claimed  that  under  Article  260  (2)  TFEU,  Sweden should pay financial penalties due to its failure to comply with the CJEU’s earlier judgment.39 In particular, the Commission proposed that the CJEU imposes on Sweden a daily penalty payment of EUR 40,947.20 and a fixed daily amount of EUR  9,597  for  each  day  that  the  necessary  measures  were  not  taken  to implement the Directive.

Almost a year later, the CJEU is still expected to rule on the case against Sweden. However, on 31 May 2012, in light of Sweden’s full implementation  of  Directive  2006/24/EC,  the  Commission  made  a  partial withdrawal of the case.

--------------

 The  transposition  saga  of Directive 2006/24/EC reveals that national courts have been reticent to question the protection of fundamental rights in EU law. They have merely resorted to an esoteric  criticism  of  the  constitutional  safeguards  against  the  right  to  privacy available in the national constitutions they defend and uphold. In light of these developments  one  may  ask  whether  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  is likely  to  raise  the  threshold  of  human  rights  in  EU  law  and  help  enhance  the external scrutiny of EU legislation. Indeed, as pointed out earlier, post-2009 the Charter  has  become  a  formal  source  of  EU  law  and  comprises  a  standard  of review for the validity of EU acts  "

Rights, everything's rights.

http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/790276/3/Mass_surveillance.pdf

[yor_on]

You don't have them, I don't have them.

[yor_on]

You might be able to define it as different 'data laws', above the waterline and under it.

This is above. https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/30/understanding-europes-big-push-to-rewrite-the-digital-rulebook/

[yor_on]

But in a real democracy you need transparency. You can't build trust without it.

[yor_on]

And for collecting your meta data those data laws 'above the water line' won't matter.

[yor_on]

The social consequences of one mass surveillance measure, Directive 2006/24/EC, explored.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251705541_The_social_consequences_of_a_mass_surveillance_measure_What_happens_when_we_become_the_%27others%27
=

This one is worth reading, then rereading. It takes up many of the aspects I react on too.

[yor_on]

Yeah, Not only USA. Privacy and rights, your rights and mine rights. It will make it very easy to walk from a democracy to a repression in the wrong hands. And I don't even think that the 'right hands' need it.

[yor_on]

That's the funny thing about it. It doesn't matter where, but you will find that just by climbing some sort of social ladder people  become convinced of their own infallibility. While not trusting others to be so they can't understand why the same should be true for themselves. It becomes extremely one-sided and the more legislation they can create to support their own positions relative others the more dangerous this kind of situation becomes. Think of Mr Trump for it, but think also about what the guy called our dysfunctional states. Not that he looked at it this way, that is me looking at it, not him.

[yor_on]

No, to call it democracy isn't true.

[yor_on]

It's more like a anthill.

[yor_on]

So the EU fails in protecting our rights. But so do our own governments. And nowhere is there a democracy.

[yor_on]

I really want to get rid of this type of situation. It locks us in, on a course to extinction. It demeans you and your rights, it lifts up people that becomes the worst expressions of humanity. And the reason why they 'work' is that their counterparts from other country's also show the same traits. It locks us in, into bad choices and into a game that won't take us out.

[yor_on]

Real politik, geopolitics, the game.