Slashdot Mirror

Agreed, the exact purpose is hazy. In europe we have the MiFID II requirements for trading systems and exchanges, and this is covered in RTS-25, which is here:

http://ec.europa.eu/finance/se...

I believe earlier drafts had timing requirements to the nanosecond until it was pointed out that a reference point was needed. The intention is to be able to track the order of events, and to put a requirement on exchanges, brokers and market participants to be able to provide audit information showing the order of events in their system to demonstrate that they are acting appropriately (so for example, not reordering order flows from clients to give preferential treatment to one client, or to themselves). How successful this is or will be is open, but the concept is a good one.

"I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to?"

I'm a little baffled by that question. I literally address this after making that statement. Go back and reread my last post if you are seriously wondering about this.

"I'm sorry, what scare tactics did I refer to? I have not referred to any well publicized and likely misleading sources used by the war on drugs - I have not referenced the usual claims of lowering IQ or as a gateway drug even though it is reported in a peer reviewed journal [nih.gov]. I specfically avoided such sources because I knew someone would attempt to discredit them."

So because you avoid those specific scare tactics you didn't use scare tactics at all? One thing does not follow the other there,

"And, please, a little more evidence than "snopes" here - one discredited mass media report is hardly adequate evidence."

That means you didn't read the link. There was something like a half dozen refuted cases in that link of the media or law enforcement claiming problems with laced weed and then later retracting their statements. Laced weed is a media manufactured problem, right up there with parents and teachers lecturing me as a child warning me of the dangers of "drug dealers handing out LSD to children" (What the hell kind of nonsense is that?). I am pointing to the complete lack of supporting data to refute the claim that laced weed is a real life danger here. If there is a real problem with this then there should be evidence of such,

"Trust me I know about people doing stupid things. I am a trauma surgeon and nearly half of my patients arrive with drug and or alcohol on their toxicology screen."

And this gets to the core of one of my main problems in this conversation. I'm getting anecdotal evidence from a person here who is regularly confabulating "drugs" and "marijuana". Marijuana is not alcohol and it is not all "drugs".

In regards to your links

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
This was nice and contributes to an informed conversation on the subject. While there is certainly still wide debate on the subject a number of other studies have found similar links to the problems detailed here. What I always wonder about the issues brought up in such studies, if marijuana is seeing such widespread use that 12% of Americans admit to having used it in the last year (from this link) why is there no health crisis in regards to the symptoms described here? People dying from liver disease and diabetes due to drinking is something that I run into in my own life and there is very clear data detailing the problem. With pot, not so much.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Despite the headline all this article does is bring up that weed is more potent now and that there is no reliable source for metrics on CBD content in pot (which is what most medical users really care about). None of these things make pot bad.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/st...
This is more scare tactics. As I didn't want to meticulously read through the whole thing I did a text search for marijuana. There is no mention of the substance here. This link is completely irrelevant.

https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
Irrelevant. Ecstasy is not marijuana. It isn't even put together by a chemist. This is more of what I have been talking about in terms of scare tactics. "Other drugs are laced with crazy stuff which means marijuana could be laced which means it is laced!" seems to be the thought process with this.

https://www.journalacs.org/art...
This is just a craz

Not really. After the warantless mass-surveillance by the governments has been confirmed to the wider public, EU countries have allowed themselves to broaden their wiretapping laws. Countries within NATO exchange data they collect between each other to get around the national privacy laws.

The new eCall system is basically a mandatory car tracking system within the EU. The regulation says that the "minimum set of data" (MDS) includes:
Information about the incident including time, precise location, vehicle identification, eCall status (as a minimum, indication if eCall has been manually or automatically triggered) and information about a possible service provider (CEC, 2005).

Additionally, paid versions of this system provided by the car manufacturers or resellers, can include extra data and continuous reporting to the 3rd party. This is similar to the situation with some modern (e.g. hybrid) cars that are continuously connected to the 3rd party servers in exchange for cheaper insurance.

It doesn't matter what is the official explanation, as long as you have to connect to a base station, your location is known. The situation is analogous to cell phone tracking.

Betrayed by our own data - Zeit Online (2011)
Mobile phones are tracking devices that reveal much about our lives. One look at our interactive map of data provided by the Green party politician Malte Spitz shows why.

Malte Spitz: Your phone company is watching

You're very wrong. Even in Europe, you can trademark a generic word as a product/brand name - just as Microsoft did with Windows (provided the word isn't already generic for that specific thing).

Windows means glass panels for looking outside.

Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.

Good, lets.

Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%.

AS IT GOT RICHER !!
As developing countries develop, they develop into rich countries. And the pollution goes up to rich country levels. It's not rocket science Windy.

EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%. America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.

You are right, the EU is much better than America.

Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.

And yet America is still twice China. They must have been quite bad if they have been decreasing for years, China has been increasing for years, yet they are still more than double China's level.

When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.

You must be just about the only person in the world who thinks Chinese are as rich as all those other countries you mention. Usually that means you are wrong...I thought you wanted common sense and facts?

China's CO2 increases have levelled off, it's very unlikely they will reach 12. Show some facts and common sense to suggest this will be the case.

Lets play along though, and assume they both reach 12. Why is it suddenly a problem for China to be identical to US levels? If it's good for the US to be at 12, why not China too? Oh I forgot, you are an entitled dirtbag. America is just assumed to be allowed to pollute so much more.

Snip all you bullshit lies already addressed elsewhere

COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.

Of course they are. Malnourished people (developing countries) will eat more food (use more CO2) when they can afford it. Obese people (Americans, Australians, etc) and overweight (some EU countries) should be the last people to complain that some one else is eating too much food. Lose more weight fatty.

In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.

So pick a level for CO2 you are happy for people to use. It's just about guaranteed that China will get there before America will.

Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.

It's a good thing China's coal use peaked in 2013 then isn't it.
Common sense would notice where the actual problem was, rich peoples lifestyles, instead of focusing on coal all the time.

Good. Lets go with common sense and facts.
Here we see your favorite of emissions per capita
Your nation jumps from 1.97 in 1990 to 7.45 in 2016. IOW, you increased 400%. EU-28 is was at 9 in 1990 and went down to 6.75 in 2016. EU-28 decreased ~ 25%.
America was ~20 in 1990, and went down to 15.5 in 2016. IOW, America decreased 25%.
Last year, CHina went up again, while EU stayed flat and America dropped.

When you speak of rich nations, I think that you have to include not just AMerica, but EU-28, Canada, Austrlia, and to be fair, CHina. BUT, CHina continues to grow their co2 emissions and now exceeds EU's per capita. In the next 5 years, there is a great chance that AMerica and CHina will have about the same per capita, which is NOT a good thing. We will probably cross at around 12.

CHina's growth continues due to building of new coal plants. In spite of your BS posting, here we speak about last year where CHina increased coal use by 5% (and that is from Chinese gov): But China’s National Development and Reform Commission released detailed data this week showing that the country’s electricity consumption jumped 6.6 percent last year. Wind and solar energy grew quickly, but not nearly enough to meet the extra demand. Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.
Wait until CHina REALLY starts moving towards EVs. That is going to drive their CO2 way up.
As to the future, CHina IS doing 700 new coal plants, with more 350 in CHina alone. The rest are around the globe, but still pushed, financed, and built by CHina.

COmmon sense and these facts PROVE that CHina is on the WRONG COURSE. China is increasing CO2 in their own nation as well as others.
In addition, most of the west continues on the RIGHT course. America and most of the west has stopped building new coal plants. Germany, continues to stay with Asia and build out new ones, but will probably be forced to drop those.
Common sense and facts says STOP BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS. In addition, it says to quit defending it.

The point is that geo-fencing is a misguided attempt to avoid liability since a user can be outside the EU and still be protected by the law.

You shouldn't believe everything you read online. Article 3 of the GDPR (see: page 110) specifies the "territorial scope" where the GDPR applies. While there are some details I'm glossing over, the gist of it is that the GDPR only applies when you, the company, or the target of the business is physically located in the EU. Notably, it makes no attempt at distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens, whether local or abroad, nor does it attempt to apply itself outside EU borders, except inasmuch as international law applies (e.g. reciprocal treaties, territories subject to EU member states, etc.).

So, if you're a person in Frankfurt trying to book a flight with Lufthansa, you get GDPR protection, regardless of if you're German, American, or anything else. The company is based in the EU and you're in the EU, so you get the protection.

If you're a person in New York trying to book a flight with Lufthansa, the company is still based in the EU, so you get GDPR protection, again without regard for your citizenship. This is a fact that—as an American—I am very much looking forward to, since it means that some of the benefits actually do extend to me over here.

If you're signing up for Netflix on its German-language site while in Frankfurt, you get GDPR protection. They're targeting people in the EU with their website, so they've made themselves subject to EU regulation. And again, the regulation applies, regardless of your nationality.

If you're signing up for Netflix on its English-language site while in New York, the company is neither targeting you in the EU nor is it based in the EU, so YOU DO NOT GET GDPR PROTECTION. And, as with the other examples, that's true whether you're from the EU or not.

As for what any of this has to do with geofencing, whether the GDPR applies to a foreign company boils down to whether they are targeting users located in the EU. If they engage in marketing in the EU, make their website available in the native language of an EU member state, or accept payment in Euros, those could be taken as proof that a company is targeting EU users and is subject to the GDPR. Conversely, geofencing the site to prevent users in the EU from accessing it is an effective way to proactively protect themselves from claims that they are targeting European users and should be subject to the terms of the GDPR.

All of which is to say, no, geofencing is not a misguided attempt at avoiding liability. It's actually a perfectly legal step that fully complies with the terms laid out in the GDPR. Moreover, the GDPR is completely unenforceable at a Starbucks in Iowa, not because the EU has no ability to enforce it there, but rather because the EU made no attempt to enforce it there. They respected the sovereignty of foreign regions.

Here is a list off the top of my head of the EU legislation initiatives that should have caused death and destruction according to a vast number of commenters here:

• - RoHS would have caused the formation of tin whiskers in all sorts of electronic devices, thereby bringing about the end of the world as we know it;
• - the ban on incandescent light bulbs would have caused the economy to crash and the pollution to increase;
• - the tracking cookie alert policy would have been impossible to implement and result in massive fines for the average blog owner.

None of those bleak predictions have become true, yet people keep to genuinely believe that the EU is ran by incompetent fools who are out to destroy the lives of their citizens with byzantine laws and obtuse obligations. This time they're trying with privacy laws. Hint: unless your business model involves trading user data, if you're already following the common best practices for storing sensitive information, you won't need to do much in order to be compliant (here's a hipster intro page about the new regulation).

A EU citizen sitting in Starbucks in the US is equally as protected as if they were sitting in France.

No they're not. The text of the GDPR doesn't mention "citizens" even once, but it does specify the cases where it applies:

Article 3(1): This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.

I.e. All European companies must comply.

Article 3(2): This regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:

a. The offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or

b. The monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union.

I.e. Any foreign company selling to or monitoring someone physically located in the EU—regardless of their citizenship—must comply.

Article 3(3): This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

I.e. Any foreign company who is otherwise required to comply by international law must comply.

And that's it. That's the exhaustive list. There are no other cases where it applies.

Notably absent from that list is anything even remotely resembling your claims. In fact, EU citizens traveling abroad are, generally speaking, NOT protected by the GDPR so long as they are abroad. And really, that's how it should be since it'd be wholly unenforceable in a jurisdiction outside of EU control. Jurisdictionally, it'd be no different than the US' recent, wrongful attempt to enforce its will outside its jurisdiction when it demanded that Microsoft hand over data contained in its European data centers.

So, contrary to your claim, if all a foreign company does is geofence their service, then yes, they should be just fine.

If you look at the FAQ you see that the GDPR does not cover this use of data.

Oh, let me just look at that...

What constitutes personal data?

Any information related to a natural person or ‘Data Subject’, that can be used to directly or indirectly identify the person. It can be anything from ... a computer IP address.

Well, crap. Maybe I don't need to worry if it's just a log?

Unfortunately, the actual text doesn't mention logs at all. Neither does it make any exemption for temporary storage, and it also doesn't actually define boundaries for what's "data mining", since it includes no mention of data mining at all. In fact, most of its restrictions are on the "processing" of personal data. Let's look at what that is:

'processing' means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction;

In other words, running grep on a log is processing. Looking at Article 6(1) and 6(4), the processing of an IP address (as any other personal data) requires either consent or official authorization... unless the personal data belongs to a child, in which case only official authorization will suffice, but there's very little I see here about what that actually entails.

Now, the GDPR doesn't actually enact law itself; that's up to the Member States. Those laws could be better-written to allow reasonable things like a traffic log where the identifiable information is never intended to be resolved, but under the text of the GDPR, the laws could also be broad enough to forbid such things.

The way I see it as a European, it will mean that they where selling my data anyway, so that means they won't do that anymore. It also means they will not be able to do that for any of the other 350+MM Europeans.

LOL I went to the European unions own website.
https://europa.eu/

It can't even stop itself from calling home to Google. Even the website dedicated to explaining GDPR

https://www.eugdpr.org/
Connects to twitter, facebook, google.

But of course your right none of these companies actually "sell" your data. They just exploit it directly to enrich themselves.

This was also the intended reason for the law. It is as if Europe is saying "You are not allowed to take our data"

Yea right. Let me know when that actually happens in Europe.

Germany is one of the worst in EU about greenhouse gaz:

- CO2 emissions
- CO2 emissions per capita.

More than 80% is based on fossil fuel in Germany. Renewable replaced essentially nuclear power: definitely not an improvement for greenhouse gaz.

You can not enter a contract with a minor as a business and maybe as an adult(?), That button afaik is a contract.

Well, you can, but it requires approval from the parent or legal guardian.
(This is for the data law in question, not for button agreements in general.)

The best solution is of course to not collect private data that you don't need.
WhatsApp probably could easily provide their service without having to store sensitive data, but then they wouldn't have anything to sell to advertisers.

This is what Europeans do best: Plan it. They will have very impressive plans, committees, and meetings. Much more extensive and impressive than anything that China or the US will do. They will translate it into 24 languages, and meticulously ensure that the meaning is exact in all of them.

On the other hand when it actually comes to doing it....

Do you have any source for that claim? CO2 output has decreased in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

> http://ec.europa.eu/justice/sm...

What a visual clusterfuck of a web page.

It's a shame that you get a +4 but omit something much more informative than your link, the LAST LINE of that CF'd page:

This document should not be considered as representative of the Commission's official position and does not replace the legislation.

Seriously, WTF is "ec.europa.eu" and why is it impossible to get legalese in plain, definitive language (here or there). That last line says, "for legal purposes, completely disregard this page and its guidance as we - the commision - will do likewise."

Maybe ALL force-based government ought to fix that before further meddling in non-force based entities.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area/euro/use-euro/euro-legal-tender_en

"This means that in the absence of an agreement of the means of payment, the creditor is obliged to accept a payment made in euro which subsequently discharges the debtor from his payment obligation."

Don't assume that legal tender in the US means exactly the same thing in the Euro-zone.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area/euro/use-euro/euro-legal-tender_en

The General Data Protection Regulation will be enforced in the EU very soon. It is a regulation that is specifically aimed at protecting the data of natural persons. Here is the text in english if you want to read it There will be enormous conflicts between the GDPR and this law passed by the US congress. It might take a while to fight this out in courts but i think this will probably lead to a ban of personal data transfer from european companies to any USA owned entity in a few years.

This point cannot be overstated. And it's not just about email. Many European businesses have been moving to cloud-based hosting for at least some of their line-of-business applications. Under GDPR these businesses will now be open to direct enforcement action by both regulators and their own customers ("data subjects" in GDPR terms). Depending on the nature of the GDPR violation, the penalties can include a fine of up to 4% of annual turnover. So expect US-owned cloud providers to lose a lot of business if the Cloud Act stands.

The General Data Protection Regulation will be enforced in the EU very soon. It is a regulation that is specifically aimed at protecting the data of natural persons. Here is the text in english if you want to read it
There will be enormous conflicts between the GDPR and this law passed by the US congress.
It might take a while to fight this out in courts but i think this will probably lead to a ban of personal data transfer from european companies to any USA owned entity in a few years.

.EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations.

Does it? I do not see any such language in the domain's governing document, but I may be tired and just not seeing it.

But I doubt, it is there, because, when the document was written in 2004, nobody could even imagine a country leaving the EU.

The meaning you propose is too limiting — being registered under .EU may also mean, that the company or person used to reside in the Union.

Just as the number of companies and persons used to reside in the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.

This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite. Hence "petty" and "petulant".

In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the .EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)

You are wrong, of course a burgeoning superstate wants control of a single currency. Deny it until you are blue in the face, everybody knows the truth.

We also know the truth about the EU army that the EU denied was in the planning before Brexit. Now the EU openly discusses improving cross border infrastructure. Moving tanks as the economy tanks, where in history have we seen this exact behaviour before?

I'm comfortable with forcing FB to do the right thing. Same way as I'm comfortable with forcing airlines to maintain their aircraft in accordance with schedules set down by *gasp* gummint regulators. The modern world is complex: people cannot possibly be expected to understand the complexities of all the industries which they interact with every day. Regulation is part of the answer. It doesn't need to be perfect to be self-evidently much better than the alternative.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/eas...

Yup... latest EFI proficiency stats had 5 countries trending up, 44 slightly up, 24 slightly down and 0 trending down. And of the 80 countries they measured China was #36 between Costa Rica and Japan rising quickly (50.94 -> 52.45 in rating), one place from being in the "medium proficiency" group. They're considerably higher rated than Mexico at #44 now. And the age distribution trend is quite clear, English proficiency is in clear growth. I think the biggest reason is the Internet, I remember when I grew up calling long distance was expensive and international like super expensive. English language newspapers were a rarity. Movies and series had subtitles, books had translations. I learned English, but the only real practical application I had was on the computer because software was in English. It was all pretty theoretical until you suddenly could browse/download/chat with people from all over the world.

And I think the rest of the world is pretty much in agreement too, even though the US is invaded by Spanish it's a pretty obvious second choice for Spanish-speaking. Europe is clearly English-aligned (96% now learn English, with Chinese not even in the top 5), so is Australia, India and much of Africa as former colonies. To the degree that anyone is learning a second language in South America it's also English. That kinda leaves the Middle East - which mostly speak Arabic and very little else - and the rest of Asia. But the Russia-China relationship is only lukewarm with few bi-lingual, with Japan it's on the freezing point, Pakistan is in the Arabic camp... even if Chinese is seeing a little bit of spread in SE Asia it's not gaining any global influence whatsoever.

P.S. Don't get me wrong there's a lot of mono-lingual or who speak one of the "smaller" world languages, so it's not like English is universal or anything. The highest estimates are 1.5 billion, which means 80% of the world doesn't speak English. I mean you can do just fine living in Japan and only know Japanese or Thailand and know Thai or Russia and know Russian or Brazil and know Portuguese. But they're not really in the running for global language.

"Obviously, if this becomes law, the only way to comply is to automatically take down any reported content without review"

Except

Those responsibilities also
imply that they should put in place effective and appropriate safeguards, in particular with a view to ensuring that they act in a diligent and proportionate manner and to
preventing the unintended removal of content which is not illegal.

From the Recommendation.

Hang on a moment. Those figures on Wikipedia are baloney. The "Percentage of the global total" for the US doesn't match the percentage calculated from the absolute figures!

Here is a better source. Per the latest figures (from 2012), China still emits more than the US and the 28-member extended EU (which includes the UK), but doesn't emit more than US+EU+India combined.

We have failsafes - the ECJ and ECHR.

TTIP is a good example, the ECJ intervened on that and ruled against the commission precisely because it's one of the few cases where the EC was ignoring citizens:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/u...

I think it's all too easy to mistake democratic institutions deciding on something you don't like for corruption, or lack of fairness. Unfortunately the reality is that there will always be some issues in which you're in the minority. I don't much like Brexit or Trump, but unfortunately as a democrat these are things I have to accept.

If there is proven corruption or subversion of democracy behind something I don't like then fine, call it out, and punish harshly those responsible, but that's hardly the norm. As a Brit living in the UK, who doesn't like the way the country is going democratically I have a couple of choices - I can stay and try and change it, or I can move to a country more in line with my ideology. What's pointless is for me to sitting pissing, and moaning, and crying about the system being rigged, or making spurious claims that don't hold up to scrutiny about lack of checks and balances when they very clearly do exist.

But think about it, how an I buy your database (schema) and drop all data, put in my own data, without infringing copyright, if the schema would be copyrighted?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you purchase a database from someone, how you can legally use that database depends entirely on the agreement you made to purchase it. If you copy and reuse the schema in some way that is not allowed by the agreement, then yes, you can be liable for copyright infringement. If you only do things that are explicitly allowed by the agreement, then of course you aren't liable for infringement, since you were given permission to do those things. This situation isn't specific to databases, though; it would apply to any protected work that you purchase.

Countries with actual single payer systems spend half or less per capita with better outcomes for all.

This is a misnomer. You can't compare spending in the U.S. to spending in other countries on just about anything. Spending levels in most countries are driven by wealth levels, AKA, the wealth available to purchase things. For example, the U.S. spends 40% more per student than the OECD average. That in turn is way more than third world countries spend. The U.S. spends more on books, houses, cars, air conditioners, etc... primarily because the U.S. is wealthier and wealthier people spend more on most stuff.

Look at the wide range in spending per inhabitant between Euopean countries. It's not because of "single-payer" causing the differences.

In the U.S., Doctors make more (and their numbers are artificially limited), drug companies spend more on researching new drugs and on getting them through the FDA's hoops, people and insurance companies are willing to spend more (i.e. there is more demand for services), etc... You can change or tweak many of those things, but going to single-payer isn't some magical fix which will create more Doctors and provide more actual healthcare.

Anecdotes are not statistics. The average household electrcity cost In Germany for the first half of 2017 was a little over 30 cents per kWh.

And before someone points out the large portion of that being taxes, the taxes are what's used to subsidize construction of those new renewable power plants. That's why you really should be using levelized cost to compare the expense of power generation - it takes into account all lifetime costs and eliminates these transients due to unrelated factors, and factors in cost-shifting due to subsidies and over time (loans, interest). The snapshot price of electricity in 1H2017 may actually be skewed high if a lot of new plants were being constructed at the time, which is probably the case.

The closest specific 'legislation' you're likely to find, to the US ideal as embodied in the constitution, is Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights which became binding on governments in 2009. Article 11 States:

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

As always, the devil is in the detail...

Given the carbon circulation in the environment a a whole, cow burps are lost in the noise.

"The [livestock] sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane... most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants."

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

"[Methane] is more than 100 times more potent at trapping energy than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal contributor to man-made climate change. When considering its conversion to carbon dioxide over time its impact on an integrated weight basis is 84 times more potent after 20 years and 28 times more potent after 100 years."

https://www.edf.org/climate-im...

"About 25%of the manmade global warming we’re experiencing today is caused by methane emissions (EDF calculation based on IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 8)."

https://www.edf.org/methane-ot...

It seems people who study this believe that methane is a significant factor in climate change, and livestock burpage is a significant factor in methane emissions.

It's official EU policy to make the Roma an integral part of every EU country:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/di...

I read this press release today about how Japan and the EU agreed on a free trade agreement. Though not knowledgeable about the details, I was stunned at the words the people involved are quoted as saying. It sounds like honest, altruistic, intelligent, dedicated people doing a great job over years and succeeding. Then I thought about the whole duplicitous, cynical, horrible crapfest that is the U.S. right now. The U.S. is so fucked because the criminal thuggish mindset has penetrated so deep into the psyche that it has become infrastructure. I can't imagine the U.S. government is capable of anything like the effort suggested in this press release. The only similar breath of fresh air I remember is the group of mayors who are trying to lead their own clean energy plan in spite of the federal government.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

Just read this from the King site: https://ec.europa.eu/commissio... i dont get where reuters get that hate speech law thing.. propaganda, thats for sure.

But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.

I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false.

It is false, because it assumes that the EU's decisions are based on a whim, when instead, their meeting was documented and you can read the transcript yourself. Anything but a whim. It might not be what you desire, you might disagree with them, but being accurate in your criticisms is nonetheless important.

The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?

I believe your understanding of the expectations of the EU are in error, but I'll focus one your understanding of what acting on a whim is, which is the root of the false claim. If you want to be bothered by concerns that the EU is expecting action that is overly hasty, or presumptuous, that is one thing, but that is not something properly described as acting on a whim.

You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.

And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?

I believe you'll want to read the article or the EU's press release or the remarks by the commissioners.

Right now, they are not entirely committed to a particular course of action, so I would not say they are in the position of having an "exact" methodology adopted. Which is fair, since they are endeavoring to proceed with deliberation.

Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.

Alex Jones is a prime example of someone who by his own admission, isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful, so I wouldn't recommend him as a counter-example, but no, I wasn't saying they were necessarily such, let alone exclusively, I merely noted it as a quality they can possess on your mention of the subject.

Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?

We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.

I believe that's a mistaken myopia, as it doesn't get down to the foundation of the problem which extends beyond the context of social media.

When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.

Well, for me, it's not a matter of expansion, it's a matter of recognizing that this is nothing new under the sun.

But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.

I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false.

It is false, because it assumes that the EU's decisions are based on a whim, when instead, their meeting was documented and you can read the transcript yourself. Anything but a whim. It might not be what you desire, you might disagree with them, but being accurate in your criticisms is nonetheless important.

The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?

I believe your understanding of the expectations of the EU are in error, but I'll focus one your understanding of what acting on a whim is, which is the root of the false claim. If you want to be bothered by concerns that the EU is expecting action that is overly hasty, or presumptuous, that is one thing, but that is not something properly described as acting on a whim.

You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.

And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?

I believe you'll want to read the article or the EU's press release or the remarks by the commissioners.

Right now, they are not entirely committed to a particular course of action, so I would not say they are in the position of having an "exact" methodology adopted. Which is fair, since they are endeavoring to proceed with deliberation.

Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.

No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.

Alex Jones is a prime example of someone who by his own admission, isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful, so I wouldn't recommend him as a counter-example, but no, I wasn't saying they were necessarily such, let alone exclusively, I merely noted it as a quality they can possess on your mention of the subject.

Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?

We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.

I believe that's a mistaken myopia, as it doesn't get down to the foundation of the problem which extends beyond the context of social media.

When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.

Well, for me, it's not a matter of expansion, it's a matter of recognizing that this is nothing new under the sun.

In the same ruling they are also encouraging the use of encryption and explicitly stating that EU states must not ban the use of encryption.

http://berec.europa.eu/eng/net...

Interesting - what if I'm trying to sell on eBay, can I no longer say "will post to UK only"?

You can when we leave. Many smaller retailers and most micro businesses would prefer not to deal with EU VAT rules. Bunch of fucking clowns.

To quote EUs new General Data Protection Regulation: "The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable." http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... I interpret this to as; if one person can identify the natural person the data relates to, the data is not anonymous.

If they spent that money on next generation nuclear their emissions would have dropped.

There are no next generation commercial nuclear plants in operations, so no, their emissions would have continued rising. They plugged the hole. Now they need to work on closing down coal plants.

Also, from where did you get the 100s of billions?

I get suspicious because when you quote the electricity rate. The rate in German is is mostly tax.

It is true that they had solar subsidies running amok for a while, though.

As it currently stands nuclear power is the only viable option to mitigate climate change.

Bullshit. Nuclear is an expensive and unpopular option. It is not going to happen.

Their electricity rates are high because of tax, not because it costs a lot to produce: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

They pay more tax because they are not short sighted and see the longer term benefit. For people who can't afford it there are heavy discounts available. You are basically complaining that they decided to tax and spend for a cleaner future, it has little to do with the cost of generation which is pretty average by EU standards.

France is the most nuclear heavy country in Europe, and they pay for it. Not through their electricity bills, but through other taxes. The industry is heavily, heavily subsidised. About a decade ago they got fed up with it and started to cut off the supply of tax money to energy companies, and the ones heavily invested in nuclear nearly went out of business. They stayed afloat by taking on foreign projects as part of the expected nuclear renaissance, which failed to materialize and is now costing other governments a fortune too.

I am *not* dead wrong. Russia has a terrible position. They're no Soviet Union. They're surrounded, where are they going to go?

Uhh, Crimea, for a start? They have Syria, too.

The US won't allow anything to happen to its captive vassal states in Europe.

I think the people of Ukraine would disagree with you on that.

The European Union is already strong enough to defend against Russia

So far, they've been strong enough to impose some sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine and the taking of Crimea. But it's kinda over... nobody believes Russia is going to just pack up and leave. Re-draw the maps: Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation.

Don't fall for the old "blame the dirty foreigners" line, it's the oldest trick in the book.

Unless the dirty foreigners are actually playing dirty. They play dirty in Ukraine, they play dirty in Syria. They play dirty on the high seas. They have vast oil wealth, hold real estate interests worldwide, and maintain the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, which Putin said (over dinner) could destroy America in a half-hour or less.

And then there's that whole internet hacking thing. If the shoe fits, wear it.

(1) First of all, Europe has net neutrality legislation, so Khanna's statement that this is the Internet with "no net neutrality" is false (makes you wonder whether he is simply ignorant or deliberately misleading people).

(2) Look at the prices: you can get unlimited packages for $5 for specific services. A cheap, small data plan plus $5 for unlimited Netflix+YouTube? That sounds awesome to me.

Organic farming in the US and EU is farming that only uses âoecertified organicâ pesticides.

There is not such thing as an "certified organic pesticides". What should that be? Or are you talking about Copperhydroxid, Azadirachtin, Bacillus thuringiensis, etc. which are biodegradable, are already present in nature, and are very specific in their properties. Whereas Glyphosate (herbicide) and other chemicals, e.g., carbamates, are usually much more dangerous and are sprayed on crops. While you do not find pesticides and herbicides on your organic apple (if it is not be transported from the neighbor).

Have a look: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

A decade ago Facebook sent me an email, suggesting that I create an account (as I didn't have one) and also telling me that I probably knew three different people - one that I worked with, one that I socialised with and one family member.

None of those people had the same email address for me.

I wonder if the UK DPA or upcoming GDPR legislation will let me force Facebook to reveal their matching algorithm - see Article 15 paragraph 1(h) of the regulation (PDF at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... )

If I understand correctly (I’m no expert, I was reading about it out of curiosity), there are several routes possible:

1. 1. The centralised procedure
   The European Medicine Agency (EMA), located in London, processes applications, carries out a scientific assessment and issues a recommendation which, if favourable, leads to the European Commission granting a European marketing authorisation, valid in all Member States. This procedure is compulsory for products derived from biotechnology, for orphan medicinal products (rare diseases) and medicinal products intended for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes; this procedure can also be used for other medicinal products that contain new active substances or are deemed specially innovative.
2. 2. The decentralised procedure
   An identical application is simultaneously sent to any number of member states (chosen by the applicant). One of those member states volunteers to perform the assessment and sends its report and recommendation to the others, who can then either agree with it or challenge it (in which case the EMA will arbitrate). This procedure leads to national authorisations valid only in the member states involved. One source says that this procedure is particularly used for generic products (based on older active substances that have received prior approval).
3. 3. The national procedure
   An application is sent to a single member state, which may issue a marketing authorisation valid only in that state. Reportedly, this procedure is now less frequently used.
4. 4. The mutual recognition procedure
   Similar to the decentralised procedure, but taking as a base an existing authorisation already obtained in one member state through the national procedure. I presume that this procedure is mainly used for older products and will also become less frequently used.

Main sources:

• * European Commission: “Authorisation procedures for medicinal products”
• * EMA: “Authorisation of medicines”

If I understand correctly (I’m no expert, I was reading about it out of curiosity), there are several routes possible:

1. 1. The centralised procedure
   The European Medicine Agency (EMA), located in London, processes applications, carries out a scientific assessment and issues a recommendation which, if favourable, leads to the European Commission granting a European marketing authorisation, valid in all Member States. This procedure is compulsory for products derived from biotechnology, for orphan medicinal products (rare diseases) and medicinal products intended for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes; this procedure can also be used for other medicinal products that contain new active substances or are deemed specially innovative.
2. 2. The decentralised procedure
   An identical application is simultaneously sent to any number of member states (chosen by the applicant). One of those member states volunteers to perform the assessment and sends its report and recommendation to the others, who can then either agree with it or challenge it (in which case the EMA will arbitrate). This procedure leads to national authorisations valid only in the member states involved. One source says that this procedure is particularly used for generic products (based on older active substances that have received prior approval).
3. 3. The national procedure
   An application is sent to a single member state, which may issue a marketing authorisation valid only in that state. Reportedly, this procedure is now less frequently used.
4. 4. The mutual recognition procedure
   Similar to the decentralised procedure, but taking as a base an existing authorisation already obtained in one member state through the national procedure. I presume that this procedure is mainly used for older products and will also become less frequently used.

Main sources:

• * European Commission: “Authorisation procedures for medicinal products”
• * EMA: “Authorisation of medicines”

If I understand correctly (I’m no expert, I was reading about it out of curiosity), there are several routes possible:

1. 1. The centralised procedure
   The European Medicine Agency (EMA), located in London, processes applications, carries out a scientific assessment and issues a recommendation which, if favourable, leads to the European Commission granting a European marketing authorisation, valid in all Member States. This procedure is compulsory for products derived from biotechnology, for orphan medicinal products (rare diseases) and medicinal products intended for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes; this procedure can also be used for other medicinal products that contain new active substances or are deemed specially innovative.
2. 2. The decentralised procedure
   An identical application is simultaneously sent to any number of member states (chosen by the applicant). One of those member states volunteers to perform the assessment and sends its report and recommendation to the others, who can then either agree with it or challenge it (in which case the EMA will arbitrate). This procedure leads to national authorisations valid only in the member states involved. One source says that this procedure is particularly used for generic products (based on older active substances that have received prior approval).
3. 3. The national procedure
   An application is sent to a single member state, which may issue a marketing authorisation valid only in that state. Reportedly, this procedure is now less frequently used.
4. 4. The mutual recognition procedure
   Similar to the decentralised procedure, but taking as a base an existing authorisation already obtained in one member state through the national procedure. I presume that this procedure is mainly used for older products and will also become less frequently used.

Main sources:

• * European Commission: “Authorisation procedures for medicinal products”
• * EMA: “Authorisation of medicines”