undefined

points

[-]

EU is hell bent on locking "your" devices down as much as possible so they can shove their big brother spyware down your throat under the guise of "protecting the kids" [1]. They are building tons of EU and national level apps where strong Play Integrity is required [2] and will pair these up with the need to prove your identity to "make sure you are an adult" everywhere on the internet [3]. At least one EU country, Spain, has already begun to profile people based on whether they may be running phone OSes other than Google blessed ones [4]

[1] https://fightchatcontrol.eu/chat-control-overview

[2] https://waag.org/en/article/european-digital-id-wallets-are-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Kids_Act

[4] https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pix...

by riedel6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Speaking of 'EU' as a single entity seems a bit like a deep state conspiracy theory. Yes l, there is lobbying around CSAM scanning, security agency, banking industry and media networks, that all work against open source and security by design. Still there is also other movements and I don't think anticompetition has the same agenda. But in the end it is politics: there needs to be enough people to care about something. For anticompetition to be active I think the problem is rather there is no European market to protect. And particularly graphene (I will get downvotes for this) is not really good in joining forces with other European businesses in this space. Activism is important, but for lobbying you need to escape the niche.

by cherryteastain5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The EU bureaucracy IS a single entity controlled by the EU Commission President, currently Ms. von der Leyen. Speaking of it as a single entity is definitely not a conspiracy theory as anyone can read how the EU works and see how the only democratic component of the EU, the Parliament, is an absolutely powerless body. Basically, the Commission can get what it wants every time.

How? Even in the case a majority of MEPs have different views to the Commission, it does not matter because only the Commission can initiate legislation. On the off chance the Commission does not get what it wants from the Parliament they can just ask the Council to send the same proposal to the Parliament as an 'emergency' procedure that has to be rejected by a minimum of 361 MEPs even if 50%+1 of the MEPs in attendance vote against. That's how Chat Control 1 was resurrected after it was voted down by a majority of MEPs. 331 MEPs voted against it vs 301 for, and it still passed due to the 361 rule. Which is why lobbying anyone except the Commission is pointless. You can do that even in China - people lobby the CCP there too, nobody claims this is democratic.

So, no conspiracy is needed, this is the EU functioning exactly as designed.

by riedel4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I am working with different EU DGs in a very different context and I can assure you first hand that it would be rather nice in many cases if that would be true in general.

by Xelbair8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

with how EC has been behaving recently that might make things worse..

by realusername7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

They probably know already, it's not the first time it happens. See the illegal pressure Google has made against OEM after CyanogenMod wanted to go commercial.

Google was found guilty by the EU antitrust investigation and payed a 4 billions euros fine (and Google has changed nothing since then, they only increased the pressure).

GrapheneOS is especially annoying for them as it destroys their blanket excuse that it's ""for security""