Browser check - Consilium
www.consilium.europa.eu

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.

  • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2382·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Rufio@lemm.eeEnglish
      582·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TechnoBabble@lemm.eeEnglish
        241·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • nivenkos@lemmy.worldEnglish
          53·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • corm@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            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?

      • ruination@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      191·
      1 year ago

      Not hard when you start saying “corporations are people too” and then let them donate all the money to the people making the laws.

      • whoami_whereami@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • adriaan@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            14·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • happyhippo@feddit.itEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              I recently learned about this. Funny thing, some parts of it are almost a copy paste of the GDPR.

          • Mubelotix@jlai.luEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            But please make it more readable and short please. This document is awful to read

            • Ghostc1212@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Mubelotix@jlai.luEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                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

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pubEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • tallwookie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      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

    • andyMFK@reddthat.comEnglish
      511·
      1 year ago

      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

    • cyd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      218·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • purplemonkeymad@lemmy.worldEnglish
        25·
        1 year ago

        Don’t get anoyed at gdpr for that. Websites could perfectly operate with those banners being non-intrusive, they choose not to.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          20·
          1 year ago

          I feel like they make them as annoying as possible on purpose so that:

          1. 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)

          2. 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.

        • cyd@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • adriaan@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        141·
        1 year ago

        Accepting cookies is not a GDPR regulation. It’s the cookie law, which is a lot older than GDPR.