The new Euro-parliament promoted concept for the new e-privacy directive has been leaked, so it can be shared.
This is of course the best case scenario, it is not very likely that the corrupt EU Commission will accept this kind of arrangement that focuses very much on the Human Rights of the citizens and the protection of the data of citizens against exploitation by companies. But nonetheless, the principles that were withheld in this working document are pretty hopeful:
1. The new e-privacy directive shall be a directive with direct action, aka a "regulation", that means that even if a member state goes rogue and denies the rights described in the directive, the citizens of that member state have a direct recourse against their government and against the companies and individuals/entities that infringe upon the directive;
2. There seems to be a pretty powerful recognition of the data that was submitted to the Euro-Parliament on what the citizens actually want, quite the opposite of what the industry wants, namely an opt-in "privacy by design" approach instead of an "opt-out" approach.
3. The concept of directive seems to also envisage heavy penalties for infringing companies and entities, up to 20 million Euros per infringement. That should be enough to even make Microsoft, Google and Apple comply...
So let's all hope that this comes into fruition, and that the data miners are finally stopped dead in their tracks, leaving the road open for open source projects as better alternatives to commercial extortion models.
Basically already physical world legislations that's in place in EU that they're trying to push online - shengen and UDHR.
But that's basic EU stuff, the problem is that the internet is basically built ontop US legislation that's why it's a mess > monetary benefit and dictator-like control - we even have US style aggressive lobbers in the EU pushing the net towards shit because it generates more money or somebody got a bit hurt.
Even tho it's only concept at least someone's trying and pushing things /back to as they should have been from the start/ so that's good.
I hate bashing but we all know that the internet is still a new thing and the legislations are as primitive as human rights in the ages of colonization.
The most likely scenario is a compromise between human rights and what the industry wants, but favoring more towards corparate interests.
I don't think they would enact the opt-in for privacy but, I could see them enforcing the penalties for infringement.
I guess they did something similar(penalties) to intel
The Euro-Parliament has actually invested in consultants that are not (all) part of the big lobby machine, that's why the concept is pretty good and complete, including the mobile data and telephony, and even machine-to-machine communications (IoT).
It's amazing that meanwhile in the US, exactly the opposite is happening: government wants to make it mandatory that cars in the future are in constant communication with each other...
Which means that besides the big software Mafia, the car Mafia will also be pressuring the EU Commission (the non-directly-voted hyper-corrupt pro-Anglo-American-hot-air-globalism creeps) to hold the will of the people down. The only bright point is that the EU knows that it is in crisis and that it needs a popularity boost. There isn't a single matter on which the citizens of the EU have expressed more concerns that the massive human rights violations by globalist corporations. Over 90% of European citizens have expressed serious concerns with regards to the way these corporations work with regards to privacy and user data, and have expressed that they want legislation to protect them from that massive abuse of human rights. The EU might want to use this to reunite the belief in the EU. I think part of the reason why the EU parliament has made a proposal for a regulation instead of a directive, is part of the huge mistrust of the EU Parliament in the EU Commission, and a direct attempt to show the Commission that they're serious about this.
Another point of interest is that the regulation, which allows for direct action of a citizen of a member state against his own government, states that the exceptions for the purposes of national security and law enforcement, are explicitly limited to the boundaries of the European Convention and the European Human Rights Treaty. That pretty much is saying the UK that if they stay in the EU, they will have to change their fresh e-gestapo legislation. It is also bringing a clear signal to the new EU members, the Visegrad countries mainly, that they will not be allowed any more special regimes, that they either join or leave. It is also a clear message to Merkel and other politicians that have sacrificed human rights and common sense in large quantities to colonial invaders and globalist exploiters in order to fulfil a dream of European expansion that is fought too hard by those enemies of democracy to have it be worth the sacrifice. The concerns about e-privacy are much greater than the concerns about Russia or immigrants.
I doubt the commission will tolerate this. They have shown again and again their authoritarian nature and completely disregard popular opinion to serve corporate interest. The Commission and the Eurogroup (that does not have any official form yet it defines European politics) are beyond redemption and the way they have been treating the countries in the south shown no will to even pretend to have a positive image.
That being said it is good that the Parliament (which is the only elected institution by ¨coincidence¨) is more aligned to people´s worries than expected. It at least means that the resulting legislations might be not as bad for privacy as the Commission would want. Also a good/complete draft is great basis to demand in protest of less privacy-respecting policy.
A strong e-privacy regulation based on human rights would be the first step towards emancipation against the occupying oppressors though. Europe has had to put up with too much abuse in the last decades, from all sides. The world isn't getting any better if the trend of brutal invasions and oppression isn't broken... time after time, it has been proven that the only thing the massive looting of Europe has been used for, is decadence and the destruction of the planet and the human species.
If the harvesting of data by foreign entities stops, they will have to show transparency with regards to their intentions and agenda, as they will have less grip on the population. If people can't be digitally targeted any more, the brainwashing and propaganda will also diminish, and people will be more careful what they pay for. The world wide importance, and the importance for humanity as a whole of digital privacy and respect of human rights, cannot be exaggerated. Any compromise should be avoided at all cost.
At the same time, heavily infiltrated agencies like the BND are under constant attack by citizens also... and that's also something that happens only in Western Continental Europe, there isn't a place in the world where this is actually happening. The pressure might become so great at some point that the colonial structures are finally dismantled and Continental Europe becomes souvereign again. It would stop the European threat to Russia, it would stop the economic burden on European companies and population, it would solve soooooo many problems if NATO were disbanded, etc...
Companies in France and Germany have also submitted a joint declaration that they want strong independent open source encryption technologies, and absolute freedom of encryption.
Another thing that is really obvious, is that the EU Parliament concept, takes the concept of "International English", as in "indepedent English from UK and US English", quite a bit further than ever before. The use of non-official-English terminology has clearly risen. That in itself is quite a statement. It would be nice to go back to French as main language instead of English. French is a language with a much longer statutory law tradition than English, French as main legislating language would avoid much ambiguity that has been created by starting to use a legislative language with no significant statutory tradition and a tendency to generalize concepts into - with luck - differently qualified versions of the same terminology. It's just a scientific-technical observation, but a lot of detail has been lost since English has been adopted as the main language for legislation. Continental Europe does not have the old Common Law system, there is no opportunity for getting the details right after the facts... the law has to be clear and take care of all the important details and nuances right away, or has to be able to give very fine rules of interpretation. This art has pretty much been invented by the legal scientists under Napoleon Bonaparte, after very extensive study of the Byzantine legal evolution, especially the Codex Iustiniani. Thousand years of statutory legal science, performed almost exclusively in latin languages. Even in Anglo-American legal science, the use of Latin still is very important because of the sheer amount of interpretative and cognitive information that can be conveyed efficiently in even a short Latin sentence in comparison to an English equivalent.
There's been a few statements I find difficult to relate to:
We have an ongoing immigration crisis and serious concerns about Russians. If globalist corporations economy continues being part of the plan to address those concerns, human rights violations by them will be ignored. Especially non-physical ones, "on the internet". Perhaps they are no longer part of the plan, or we may be looking at a plan B, C, and D? Is this wishful thinking, or an observable tendency?
Due to many recent political events, I have my doubts on EU being accepted by member state governments to become a superstate structure over-ruling their desire to "redefine" their own democracy into something slightly different. Last time I checked, we were riding on the alt-winds, running in the opposite direction.
Which companies, and which types of companies are those? I don't live in those two countries and feel I may be missing on something important here.
Is English unable to express a concept? Or have we been just too lazy to translate continental ideas and concepts to English? My take is, culture goes both ways, and English is just as good to propagate ideas into, as to propagate ideas from. Perhaps its all the procedural dramas we've imported from across the water (I'm attempting humor here)?
The Common Law system is an important point, though, and so is the difference to the legal tradition of Continental Europe.