It had been in the works for a while, but now it has formally been adopted. From the article:
The regulation provides that by 2027 portable batteries incorporated into appliances should be removable and replaceable by the end-user, leaving sufficient time for operators to adapt the design of their products to this requirement.
GDPR
forcing usb-c
forcing removable batteries
The EU sure is handling tech laws and tech giants a fuck of a lot better than the US is. Damn.
Jealous.
Well yeah, the US is set up for giant corporations to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible regardless of how much it will fuck over the customer, bonus points if fucking over the customer doesn’t include immediate proof of physical harm to said customer.
Wait until you hear about another awesome thing they’re trying to do: chat control
The real danger behind Chat Control and similar measures, is that countries won’t even have to utilize parallel construction anymore. No longer will dragnet surveillance mostly target the big guys. They’ll be able to basically automate prosecution of any crime that they desire.
Think about how many little slices have been taken out of our freedom pie over the last 10 years. How many similar dystopian laws have passed despite our outrage?
Technology is outpacing our ability to protect ourselves, and countries will keep pushing boundaries until nothing is left sacred.
Oppression never sleeps.
Technology is just a tool though. It could equally be used to stop tax evasion entirely, and all sorts of crime by tracking transactions and abolishing cash. Location monitoring for evidence, etc.
Like surveillance isn’t a bad thing when your house is burgled or you get mugged.
The real issue is that the politicians are often the ones doing the tax evasion, fraud, etc. in the first place, and they don’t care about violent crime that only affects working class areas.
Did you really just try to spin transactional and location tracking as a good thing?
How is it that some of the safest countries are also the most privacy respecting?
Yay! Very awesome indeed. /s
That’s disgusting.
Yeah, that is so unfortunate. As someone who really wants to move to Europe someday mainly because of their excellent regulations regarding tech, Chat Control has certainly made me rethink that decision, though not really cancelling it outright.
Not hard when you start saying “corporations are people too” and then let them donate all the money to the people making the laws.
The concept of corporate personhood is way older than you think, it goes back to at least ancienct Rome around 800 BC. Other countries have that as well, eg. the German constitution says very explicitly “Fundamental rights shall also apply to domestic artificial persons insofar as the nature of such rights shall permit.”. That’s not really the issue, the actual issue is the extreme reliance of political campaigns on donations coupled with the exorbitant costs of political campaigning in the US.
Citizen’s United is very often misrepresented as being about corporate personhood, when in fact this concept isn’t even referenced in the ruling at all. Instead the ruling says that political speech rights aren’t contingent on the identity of the speaker at all. Even if you abolish corporate personhood (which would bring a whole host of other issues with it because for example corporate property ownership hinges on the legal person concept as well) that still wouldn’t overturn Citizen’s United.
What’s GDPR?
Data privacy to protect individuals. Quick summary here: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/General-Data-Protection-Regulation-GDPR
We should have that in America
The good news is that GDPR protects you somewhat regardless of where you’re from and who you are. If a company fucks with the privacy of an EU citizen living in the USA they are still on the hook, so companies generally adopt the measures (e.g. the ability to request and delete all your data) globally. You can even just get a VPN and set it to somewhere in the EU.
California has a similar law, the CCPA.
I recently learned about this. Funny thing, some parts of it are almost a copy paste of the GDPR.
But please make it more readable and short please. This document is awful to read
Legalese is actually a good thing because it covers every possible situation and reduces the number of loopholes. We have people like LegalEagle to break shit down for us into plain English. If we write the laws themselves in plain English then corporate lawyers will argue, successfully, that there’s a loophole that lets them violate the spirit of the law, or the government will apply the law in situations where it wasn’t meant to be applied in order to fuck over innocent people.
In France we had something in our constitution once that ruled that trying to abuse the laws was prohibited and judges were instructed to apply the law in a fair way, not in the most technically correct way
With a bit of luck, complaince in the EU will become the norm and we will get these globally.
The EU are fighting this fight for everyone.
it’ll just mean that multiple BOMs have to be designed for any given product - it may lead to fewer products being available, over time. or perhaps the reverse - I guess we’ll see in ~3.5 years
I mean, that’s like saying a bodybuilder is developing muscles a lot better than a baby. You’re right but that bar is so incredibly low it may as well not even exist
It isn’t like saying anything like that, no.
I’m honestly not sure how much of a win GDPR is. If you consider the number of seconds people have collectively spent clicking mindlessly on “accept cookies” dialogues, it’s one of the worst wastes of people’s time ever.
Don’t get anoyed at gdpr for that. Websites could perfectly operate with those banners being non-intrusive, they choose not to.
I feel like they make them as annoying as possible on purpose so that:
You learn to just click “accept” since that’s always available and clearly visible (Vs 3/4 clicks and finding the dark grey over light grey text at font size 6)
People develop the same opinion as the previous comment “stupid GDPR is just annoying because extra clicks” and making sure they never get the support for it in the US.
Laws should be evaluated according to their consequences, intended and unintended. If a law starts from the purest of intentions, and ends up annoying literally billions of people forever, it’s still a problem.
Accepting cookies is not a GDPR regulation. It’s the cookie law, which is a lot older than GDPR.
GDPR was a mistake
I’m curious why you think it was a mistake.
The power was always in the client’s hands.
Care to elaborate on that profound statement?
You can just not accept cookies.
Uh huh. Considering you don’t live in an EU country, and by your statements I highly doubt you’ve ever interacted with GDPR in any way especially on the business side… It’s safe to disregard your fortune cookies.
Yeah… After the GDPR became a thing
? You know Firefox can just deny them
Yes, but it’s all or nothing with that, what the GDPR forced websites to do is ask what the cookies are being used for and allow users to more granularly choose which ones they’re ok with keeping, for example by disabling cookies altogether you wouldn’t be able to keep your sessions after you log in, you close the tab and you have to log in again every single time
The biggest browser is also written by an advertising company, and that setting conveniently disappeared more than a decade ago.
I’m an EU citizen and I strongly approve of GDPR. Out of curiosity: are you an EU citizen?
I don’t live in the EU and am supportive. It pushed a lot of companies to implement mechanisms that should’ve been there in the first place.
I am not.
Why? Isn’t the increased regulation regarding everyones private information a bonus?
The power was always in the client’s hands.
GDPR is about much more than just cookies
All of which I can safely assume is effectively unenforceable.
Thankfully no one has to rely on your assumptions.
Lol
lmao, even
Better go back playing StarCraft, my man
wc3 has better maps