#EU General Data Protection Regulation

[thelawandmore]

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business 

Recent Developments in Data Privacy and Their Implications for Business

Data privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world. Here are nine recent developments that changed the data privacy landscape and what they mean for businesses and consumers.  1. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018, creating a unified data protection framework across the EU and giving individuals more control over their personal data. The EU General…

[trainsinanime]

I've seen a number of people worried and concerned about this language on Ao3s current "agree to these terms of service" page. The short version is:

Don't worry. This isn't anything bad. Checking that box just means you forgive them for being US American.

Long version: This text makes perfect sense if you're familiar with the issues around GDPR and in particular the uncertainty about Privacy Shield and SCCs after Schrems II. But I suspect most people aren't, so let's get into it, with the caveat that this is a Eurocentric (and in particular EU centric) view of this.

The basic outline is that Europeans in the EU have a right to privacy under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an EU directive (let's simplify things and call it an EU law) that regulates how various entities, including companies and the government, may acquire, store and process data about you.

The list of what counts as data about you is enormous. It includes things like your name and birthday, but also your email address, your computers IP address, user names, whatever. If an advertiser could want it, it's on the list.

The general rule is that they can't, unless you give explicit permission, or it's for one of a number of enumerated reasons (not all of which are as clear as would be desirable, but that's another topic). You have a right to request a copy of the data, you have a right to force them to delete their data and so on. It's not quite on the level of constitutional rights, but it is a pretty big deal.

In contrast, the US, home of most of the world's internet companies, has no such right at a federal level. If someone has your data, it is fundamentally theirs. American police, FBI, CIA and so on also have far more rights to request your data than the ones in Europe.

So how can an American website provide services to persons in the EU? Well… Honestly, there's an argument to be made that they can't.

US websites can promise in their terms and conditions that they will keep your data as safe as a European site would. In fact, they have to, unless they start specifically excluding Europeans. The EU even provides Standard Contract Clauses (SCCs) that they can use for this.

However, e.g. Facebook's T&Cs can't bind the US government. Facebook can't promise that it'll keep your data as secure as it is in the EU even if they wanted to (which they absolutely don't), because the US government can get to it easily, and EU citizens can't even sue the US government over it.

Despite the importance that US companies have in Europe, this is not a theoretical concern at all. There have been two successive international agreements between the US and the EU about this, and both were struck down by the EU court as being in violation of EU law, in the Schrems I and Schrems II decisions (named after Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist who sued in both cases).

A third international agreement is currently being prepared, and in the meantime the previous agreement (known as "Privacy Shield") remains tentatively in place. The problem is that the US government does not want to offer EU citizens equivalent protection as they have under EU law; they don't even want to offer US citizens these protections. They just love spying on foreigners too much. The previous agreements tried to hide that under flowery language, but couldn't actually solve it. It's unclear and in my opinion unlikely that they'll manage to get a version that survives judicial review this time. Max Schrems is waiting.

So what is a site like Ao3 to do? They're arguably not part of the problem, Max Schrems keeps suing Meta, not the OTW, but they are subject to the rules because they process stuff like your email address.

Their solution is this checkbox. You agree that they can process your data even though they're in the US, and they can't guarantee you that the US government won't spy on you in ways that would be illegal for the government of e.g. Belgium. Is that legal under EU law? …probably as legal as fan fiction in general, I suppose, which is to say let's hope nobody sues to try and find out.

But what's important is that nothing changed, just the language. Ao3 has always stored your user name and email address on servers in the US, subject to whatever the FBI, CIA, NSA and FRA may want to do it. They're just making it more clear now.

[xylophonetangerine]

Cookie pop-ups are designed to be confusing and make you 'agree' to be tracked. This add-on automatically answers consent pop-ups for you, so you can't be manipulated. Set your preferences once, and let the technology do the rest!

This add-on is built and maintained by workers at Aarhus University in Denmark. We are privacy researchers that got tired of seeing how companies violate the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Because the organisations that enforce the GDPR do not have enough resources, we built this add-on to help them out.

We looked at 680 pop-ups and combined their data processing purposes into 5 categories that you can toggle on or off. Sometimes our categories don't perfectly match those on the website, so then we will choose the more privacy preserving option.

I've been using this since it came out in December 2019 (how time flies!) and definitely recommend it.

[taikeero-lecoredier]

Chat Control in a nutshell (please reblog this, US people)

Find out more about Chat Control here TAKE ACTION HERE ! OR HERE Calling is much more efficient ! The latter link will redirect you to the official websites of your respective reps. Under the "read more", you will find what you need to say/write when contacting your reps. You will also find an alternate format of this comic,and I give explicit permission for people to translate it and spread it anywhere for awareness. Credit really not needed, I don't care about that rn Even if this is a EU proposal, I am urging Americans to also share this, since it goes hand in hand with KOSA. DON'T FORGET TO JOIN OUR DISCORD SERVER AGAINST CHAT CONTROL ! https://discord.com/invite/e7FYdYnMkS

(Latest update on Chat Control was the 12 september 2024) This is a little long, so feel free to shorten it as you wish : Subject line: "2022/0155(COD) Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed introduction of "Chat Control" This measure poses a serious threat to the privacy and fundamental rights of all EU citizens and stands in stark contradiction to the core principles that the European Union seeks to uphold. The proposed Chat Control contravenes Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantee the right to respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The indiscriminate surveillance of private messages without specific suspicion or cause directly violates these fundamental rights. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets out stringent rules for the processing of personal data. The proposed indiscriminate surveillance and scanning of private messages before end-to-end encryption is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation enshrined in the GDPR. Specifically, Articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR, which govern the lawfulness and principles of data processing, would be violated by the introduction of such measures. The implementation of Client-Side Scanning (CSS) on devices means that all messages and files are scanned on the user's device before being encrypted and sent. This effectively nullifies the protection offered by end-to-end encryption and opens the door to misuse and additional security vulnerabilities. Moreover, the technical capability to scan such content could be exploited by malicious actors to circumvent or manipulate surveillance mechanisms. Such far-reaching surveillance measures not only endanger privacy but also freedom of expression. The knowledge that their private messages are being scanned and monitored could significantly restrict individuals' willingness to freely express themselves. Additionally, trust in digital communication platforms would be severely undermined. I urge you to take a strong stance against this disproportionate and unlawful measure. The privacy and digital rights of EU citizens must be safeguarded. It is imperative that we protect our fundamental rights and ensure transparency in the decision-making processes of our leaders. For more detailed information on the proposal and its implications, please refer to the following resource: Link to Netzpolitik article. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/rat-soll-chatkontrolle-durchwinken-werde-jetzt-aktiv/ Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Sincerely, [Name] Art. 10 GG , Art. 8 & 11 EU Charta , Art. 8 EMRK (Alternate comic here V)

[mariacallous]

Big Tech may have found their response to the European Union’s (EU) digital competition and content moderation policies: tariffs. “We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in his announcement eliminating the company’s fact-checkers. President Trump, of course, has described himself as a “Tariff Man.”

Europe’s “ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship” were number one on the Zuckerberg target list. The only way Meta “can push back on this global trend is with the support of the U.S. government,” he explained, adding, “that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship.”

The semantic conflation of curatorial responsibility and censorship, a familiar domestic political gambit, has been internationalized and weaponized to attack the expectation—at least in Europe—that media platforms like Meta should practice responsible content curation.

Tariffs and truth

Thanks to intensive lobbying by Big Tech, the U.S. Congress has done little to provide meaningful oversight of the digital platform companies. The tech CEOs invited to the Trump inaugural lead companies that dominate the free flow of information, invade personal privacy, and pervert the competitive marketplace. Yet, these companies have been able to avoid meaningful domestic oversight for their entire existence.

The void created by American inaction has been filled by EU regulations despite the companies’ strong objections. Combining claims of censorship with Donald Trump’s affinity for tariffs just might be the leverage Big Tech seeks against the EU’s digital policies. Mark Zuckerberg appears ready to spearhead the effort.

By framing the EU’s actions as “institutionalizing censorship,” and asserting that the EU is “going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” Zuckerberg presses all the right MAGA buttons to provide a rationale for the Trump administration to fight the EU’s decisions. It is not a surprising strategy, and is made even more significant because it reverses previous corporate policy.

After the January 6 insurrection, Facebook along with Twitter suspended Donald Trump’s account. “They shouldn��t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing,” President Trump said at the time. Accusing Zuckerberg of plotting against him, Trump wrote in a 2024 book that the Meta CEO could, “spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Meta’s 2025 policy switch, however, has been met with the new president’s approval. Asked if Meta was responding to his earlier threats, Trump replied, “probably,” adding, “I think they have come a long way.” 

What’s the fuss over EU regulation?

The EU has enacted multiple laws to try and provide oversight of the previously unsupervised activities of Big Tech. It started in 2018 with privacy protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In 2022, the European Parliament passed the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to deal with the lack of digital marketplace competition. Twenty-twenty-four saw the AI Act (AI) establishing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence.

All these actions were aggressively fought by Big Tech. But for social media companies, the EU legislation that is the biggest challenge is the 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA). This law covers a handful of online platform companies deemed pervasive enough to be “gatekeepers” with a new style of regulation.

Instead of the traditional form of regulatory oversight that micromanages how a company operates, the DSA establishes expectations for what the company will deliver.  These expectations include content moderation and transparency. The law does not specify how moderation is achieved, but that it is being done in a meaningful and significant manner. Far from regulatory micromanagement of corporate operations, the companies are required to self-certify that they are delivering on the law’s expectations. If they are not, then there are penalties.

While Meta has eliminated fact-checking in the U.S., it has not done so in the EU. It is hard to certify content moderation, as the DSA requires, when you’ve fired all the moderators. This has created a conflict between the company’s U.S. practices and EU requirements. Even if it represents a legal problem, the decision is good for the company since social media platforms, such as Meta, thrive on engagement-stimulating, unedited rage, and bottom-line profits should increase with the elimination of fact-checking jobs.

Elon Musk and NATO—a signal?

Comments by Vice President Vance during the 2024 campaign hinted at leveraging the power of the federal government to deal with DSA requirements. Asked in an interview whether American support of NATO could hinge on whether the EU regulated Elon Musk’s social media platform X, Vance responded affirmatively.

“So, what America should be saying is, if NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance, why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech?” Vance said. “It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”

These comments reveal a willingness to link trade and security to digital regulation. A tariff-based response to EU policies seems plausible under such a mindset.

A regulation vs. trade crusade?

On his first day as President of the United States, Donald Trump said “tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” A few days later, he threatened the EU with tariffs unless they bought more U.S. oil and gas.  

The U.S. has a trade deficit with the EU when it comes to goods such as oil and gas but a favorable trade balance when it comes to services such as those of Big Tech. The challenge, therefore, is not to use tariffs to force the EU to buy more, but, as Zuckerberg told the Joe Rogan podcast, “the United States should be defending its companies.”

Caught between a U.S. Congress that has done little to protect against misinformation and hate, and the world’s second largest trading block which has tried to combine freedom of expression and the expectation of curatorial responsibility, Big Tech faces a dilemma. The combined arguments of censorship and defending American companies is a powerful elixir served to an audience of one man.

Wall Street analysts hail Mark Zuckerberg as “the best CEO of our time” for his ability to align Meta’s self-interest with prevailing political winds. The emerging narrative of “censorship vs. trade” is a powerful, if calculated, political move. Threatening tariffs in response to EU digital regulations could be a strategy that appeals to “Tariff Man.”

Ironically, this push comes at a time when artificial intelligence offers low-cost tools for fact-checking and content moderation. Yet, the political calculus behind the “censorship vs. trade” strategy may overshadow technical realities.

Mark Zuckerberg’s maneuvering is a shrewd effort to redefine the debate about European digital regulation. The question now becomes whether President Trump will add relaxed enforcement of the EU’s digital laws—all of them—to his list of trade demands.

[kde-plasma-official]

whats the status of like. using linux on a phone. it feels like there are two parallel universes, one that kde lives in where people use linux on phones, and one where if you google linux phones you discover theyre almost usable but they can barely make phone calls or send texts and they only run on like 4 models of phone

don't have much experience with linux on phone so anyone please correct me if i'm wrong but

one of the problems with phones is that every vendor and manufacturer adds their own proprietary driver blob to it and these have to be extracted and integrated into the kernel in order for the hardware to function.

as companies don't like to share their magic of "how does plastic slab make light", reverse engineering all your hardware is quite a difficult task. Sometimes there just isn't a driver for the camera of a phone model yet because no one was able to make it work.

So naturally, this takes a lot of time and tech is evolving fast so by the time a phone is completely compatible, next generations are already out and your new model obsolete.

Also important to note: most of this work is made by volunteers, people with a love for programming who put a lot of their own time into these things, most of them after their daytime jobs as a hobby.

Of course, there are companies and associations out there who build linux phones for a living. But the consumer hardware providers, like Pinephone, Fairphone and others out there aren't as big and don't have this much of a lobby behind them so they can't get their prices cheap. Also the manufacturers are actively working against our right to repair so we need more activism.

To make the phones still affordable (and because of said above driver issues) they have to use older hardware, sometimes even used phones from other manufacturers that they have to fix up, so you can't really expect a modern experience. At least you can revive some older phones. As everything Linux.

Then there's the software providers who many of are non-profits. KDE has Plasma Mobile, Canonical works on Ubuntu Touch, Debian has the Mobian Project and among some others there's also the Arch Linux ARM Project.

That's right baby, ARM. We're not talking about your fancy PC or ThinkPad with their sometimes even up to 64-bit processors. No no no, this is the future, fucking chrome jellyfishes and everything.

This is the stuff Apple just started building their fancy line of over-priced and over-engineered Fisher-Price laptop-desktops on and Microsoft started (Windows 10X), discontinued and beat into the smush of ChatGPT Nano Bing Open AI chips in all your new surface hp dell asus laptops.

What I was trying to say is, that program support even for the market dominating monopoles out there is still limited and.... (from my own experience from the workplace) buggy. Which, in these times of enshittification is a bad news. And the good projects you gotta emulate afterwards anyways so yay extra steps!

Speaking of extra steps: In order to turn their phone into a true freedom phone, users need to free themselves off their phones warranty, lose their shackles of not gaining root access, installing a custom recovery onto their phone (like TWRP for example), and also have more technical know-how as the typical user, which doesn't quite sounds commercial-ready to me.

So is there no hope at all?

Fret not, my friend!

If we can't put the Linux into the phone, why don't we put the phone around the Linux? You know... Like a container?

Thanks to EU regulations-

(US consumers, please buy the European versions of your phones! They are sometimes a bit more expensive, but used models of the same generation or one below usually still have warranty, are around the same price as over there in Freedom Valley, and (another side tangent incoming - because of better European consumer protection laws) sometimes have other advantages, such as faster charging and data transfer (USB-C vs lightning ports) or less bloated systems)

- it is made easier now to virtualize Linux on your phone.

You can download a terminal emulator, create a headless Linux VM and get A VNC client running. This comes with a performance limit though, as a app with standard user permissions is containerized inside of Android itself so it can't use the whole hardware.

If you have root access on your phone, you can assign more RAM and CPU to your VM.

Also things like SDL just released a new version so emulation is getting better.

And didn't you hear the news? You can run other things inside a VM on an iPhone now! Yup, and I got Debian with Xfce running on my Xiaomi phone. Didn't do much with it tho. Also Windows XP and playing Sims 1 on mobile. Was fun, but battery draining. Maybe something more for tablets for now.

Things will get interesting now that Google officially is a monopoly. It funds a lot of that stuff.

I really want a Steam Deck.

Steam phones would be cool.

[theyhavetakenovermylife]

im not gonna lie, a little sad n disappointed that u use genAI for images…

Not gonna lie, I am very sad and disappointed that this is a conversation that is need to be had, on the platform of a TMNT reader insert writer. A conversation base of an image, created for the soul purpose of creating a idea for an outfit in a smut, generated in a part of the world, where AI regulations are becoming more and more strict (which I fully support, may I add), with the focus on ethical usage of Data and AI, among many other laws that are put in place to protect people's jobs and their personal data.

I live in the EU - one of the places with the most strict laws when it comes to personal data, and one of the first places to actually put an AI law into place. The AI act of 2024.

To those of you that do not know about the EU AI act, you can read about it here on the EU Parliament's webside: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

In other words, the EU wants AI to help create jobs and job opportunities, not steal them. Part of that is classifiactions. The AI I used to help give the reader an idea of what Bluestar's outfit would be (which I also disclosed as an AI image, as the law requrise in this part of the world), is classified as a low/lower-risk generative AI, that has to follow transparency requirements and the EU copyright law.

I do not know how other countries tackles AI, nor what laws they are planning on putting in place. I follow along in the EU and Danish conversations and laws about AI, as they actually are a big part of my studies as a future pedagog.

Part of my job is to look at AI as an aiding tool - not an overtaker. More specifically, I am learning how I can use AI as a tool for people in our community, at may have limited ways of expression or need extra help. Along with that, I also have make sure that the AI used, aline with the EU GDPR law (General Data Protection Regulation), as that is very much a big part of not just my future job, but everyone else's in the EU.

Now, I've just told you about the EU AI Act of 2024, but not how my country of Denmark has been talking and putting in protective measures on AI since 2019, with the focus on ethical usage of AI, aka protecting people and their jobs. Heck, this is the country that outlawed Uber, because it took jobs from Taxi drivers.

Companies in Denmark has been requred - by law - to report on their use of AI and Data Ethics since 2021. In other words, my country take AI and data very seriously, and don't mess around when it come to that.

Why this focus on the EU and Denmark you may ask? Well, that's because all of these laws and proposed laws, are some that I follow on a daily basis as a Danish citizen. A country that has focused on the digital ethics for years. I live in a country, where we teach children how to use AI in an ethical manner, and where we teach university how to use AI as a tool - a compliment to their studies - and not something that is supposed to take over their studies, rendering them obsolete.

I'm sorry, but whatever lack of rules and regualtions other countries may have, does not apply to me, and the increasingly strict set of rules I have to follow in my country.

I am very aware that people in Hollywood are losing their jobs due to AI, and I think it's horrifing. I'm very aware that graffic designers in other countries have lost jobs to AI, and it makes me very sad. But I am not a lord of regulations in other countries - missing or not. I am just a Danish citizen, following the Danish law and rules, and whether or not other places will look at such rules and laws themselves, I have no control over.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox, that is calling me all sorts of names, saying that I don't care about the environment, because I generated an AI image, totally disregarding the fact that I live in one of the most carbon neutral cities in the western world, and not knowing that I was one of the first generations of students, studying at the Danish FN's World Goals profile schools.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox, telling me i am uneducated, when this is literally part of my studies. When my studies and future job opportunities - among many others -, literally requries that I'm up to date with the laws regarding data and AI usage for my own country, and have been doing so, ever since I first started working in 2020.

I am sad and disappointed in the comments in my Inbox saying that I am ruining the job opportunities, because I didn't pay an artist to illustrate an image. What money may I ask you? I'm a student, doing this for free, because I enjoy it, with literally no monetary gains from this, what so ever. So what money??

I am sad and disappointed that the platform I use to write TMNT stories, should now become a ground for dicussions about AI, when that is something that should be taken up with the rule makers of where ever you live, and not a TMNT reader insert writer on Tumblr.

I refuse to take further part in the discussion about AI using my Tumblr platform, only deciding to do so now, as many messages I started recivieng were hurtful, starting to boarder on the abusive.

I leave you with this power point, showing you how AI is viewed along side jobs and people's job views and opportunities in Denmark as by 2024, made by the Nordic firm Implement Consultation Group.

Remember to treat each other with kindness, and understand the round world is different everywhere💚

[frank-olivier]

The Future of Justice: Navigating the Intersection of AI, Judges, and Human Oversight

One of the main benefits of AI in the justice system is its ability to analyze vast amounts of data and identify patterns that human judges may not notice. For example, the use of AI in the U.S. justice system has led to a significant reduction in the number of misjudgments, as AI-powered tools were able to identify potential biases in the data and make more accurate recommendations.

However, the use of AI in the justice system also raises significant concerns about the role of human judges and the need for oversight. As AI takes on an increasingly important role in decision-making, judges must find the balance between trusting AI and exercising their own judgement. This requires a deep understanding of the technology and its limitations, as well as the ability to critically evaluate the recommendations provided by AI.

The European Union's approach to AI in justice provides a valuable framework for other countries to follow. The EU's framework emphasizes the need for human oversight and accountability and recognizes that AI is a tool that should support judges, not replace them. This approach is reflected in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which requires AI systems to be transparent, explainable and accountable.

The use of AI in the justice system also comes with its pitfalls. One of the biggest concerns is the possibility of bias in AI-generated recommendations. When AI is trained with skewed data, it can perpetuate and even reinforce existing biases, leading to unfair outcomes. For example, a study by the American Civil Liberties Union found that AI-powered facial recognition systems are more likely to misidentify people of color than white people.

To address these concerns, it is essential to develop and implement robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that AI systems are transparent, explainable and accountable. This includes conducting regular audits and testing of AI systems and providing clear guidelines and regulations for the use of AI in the justice system.

In addition to oversight mechanisms, it is also important to develop and implement education and training programs for judges and other justice professionals. This will enable them to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI, as well as the potential risks and challenges associated with its use. By providing judges with the necessary skills and knowledge, we can ensure that AI is used in a way that supports judges and enhances the fairness and accountability of the justice system.

Human Centric AI - Ethics, Regulation. and Safety (Vilnius University Faculty of Law, October 2024)

Friday, November 1, 2024

[wagecagelocations]

Here’s a refined breakdown of the negative impacts associated with the listed companies and the accusations tied to them:

Google

Google is one of the most powerful technology companies in the world, with significant influence over internet search, digital advertising, and data collection. The key negative impacts include:

垄断 (Monopoly):

Google has faced antitrust lawsuits in multiple countries, including the U.S. and EU, for allegedly using its dominant position in search and digital advertising to suppress competition.

Examples include prioritizing its own services (like Google Shopping or YouTube) in search results, disadvantaging competitors.

侵犯隐私 (Privacy Invasion):

Google has been repeatedly accused of violating user privacy through extensive data collection practices.

Issues like tracking users across websites (even in private browsing) and selling targeted ads based on sensitive user data have raised concerns.

Some governments have penalized Google for non-compliance with privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU.

滥用权力 (Abuse of Power):

Google’s control over the digital advertising market has led to allegations of unfair practices, such as charging advertisers high fees or giving preferential treatment to its own ad platforms.

Critics argue this dominance stifles innovation and undermines smaller competitors.

Alchemy Technologies

Alchemy Technologies, a digital marketing company, has been accused of engaging in deceptive practices that manipulate user behavior:

Manipulation and Deception:

The company has been accused of misleading consumers through fake advertisements, false claims, or unethical digital marketing strategies.

Allegations include using dark patterns (design choices that trick users into actions they didn’t intend, such as subscriptions) and targeting vulnerable populations with exploitative tactics.

Erosion of Trust:

By misleading consumers and clients, companies like Alchemy Technologies contribute to widespread distrust in digital marketing practices, undermining the credibility of the broader advertising ecosystem.

Apple

Apple is known for its innovation and market leadership but has faced serious accusations regarding its business and labor practices:

垄断 (Monopoly):

Apple has been accused of monopolistic behavior, particularly regarding its App Store policies.

Developers are required to use Apple’s in-app payment system, for which Apple charges up to 30% commission, leading to accusations of anticompetitive behavior.

Legal battles, like the high-profile lawsuit with Epic Games, highlight claims that Apple unfairly limits competition within its ecosystem.

侵犯隐私 (Privacy Invasion):

Despite its public stance on user privacy, Apple has been accused of enabling surveillance, particularly in cases where it complied with government requests for user data.

Concerns about the AirTags product, which has been misused for stalking and tracking people without consent, further dent Apple’s privacy reputation.

强迫劳动 (Forced Labor):

Apple has faced allegations of forced labor within its supply chain, particularly involving factories in China and other countries.

Investigations have linked Apple’s suppliers to Uyghur forced labor in China, where workers are allegedly coerced into producing components for Apple products.

Reports of abusive working conditions, including long hours, low pay, and unsafe environments, persist, despite Apple’s claims of enforcing ethical supplier standards.

Summary of Impacts:

Google: Dominance in tech markets, privacy violations, and abuse of its powerful position have led to antitrust scrutiny and fines worldwide.

Alchemy Technologies: Manipulative and deceptive marketing practices harm consumer trust and foster unethical advertising environments.

Apple: Allegations of monopolistic practices, breaches of privacy, and labor rights violations cast a shadow over its reputation as a tech innovator.

Each company’s actions have far-reaching consequences, affecting industries, consumers, and global labor markets. Addressing these issues would require stricter regulations, transparency, and corporate accountability.

Here’s a refined breakdown of the negative impacts associated with the listed companies and the accusations tied to them:

Google

Google is one of the most powerful technology companies in the world, with significant influence over internet search, digital advertising, and data collection. The key negative impacts include:

垄断 (Monopoly):

Google has faced antitrust lawsuits in multiple countries, including the U.S. and EU, for allegedly using its dominant position in search and digital advertising to suppress competition.

Examples include prioritizing its own services (like Google Shopping or YouTube) in search results, disadvantaging competitors.

侵犯隐私 (Privacy Invasion):

Google has been repeatedly accused of violating user privacy through extensive data collection practices.

Issues like tracking users across websites (even in private browsing) and selling targeted ads based on sensitive user data have raised concerns.

Some governments have penalized Google for non-compliance with privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU.

滥用权力 (Abuse of Power):

Google’s control over the digital advertising market has led to allegations of unfair practices, such as charging advertisers high fees or giving preferential treatment to its own ad platforms.

Critics argue this dominance stifles innovation and undermines smaller competitors.

Alchemy Technologies

Alchemy Technologies, a digital marketing company, has been accused of engaging in deceptive practices that manipulate user behavior:

Manipulation and Deception:

The company has been accused of misleading consumers through fake advertisements, false claims, or unethical digital marketing strategies.

Allegations include using dark patterns (design choices that trick users into actions they didn’t intend, such as subscriptions) and targeting vulnerable populations with exploitative tactics.

Erosion of Trust:

By misleading consumers and clients, companies like Alchemy Technologies contribute to widespread distrust in digital marketing practices, undermining the credibility of the broader advertising ecosystem.

Apple

Apple is known for its innovation and market leadership but has faced serious accusations regarding its business and labor practices:

垄断 (Monopoly):

Apple has been accused of monopolistic behavior, particularly regarding its App Store policies.

Developers are required to use Apple’s in-app payment system, for which Apple charges up to 30% commission, leading to accusations of anticompetitive behavior.

Legal battles, like the high-profile lawsuit with Epic Games, highlight claims that Apple unfairly limits competition within its ecosystem.

侵犯隐私 (Privacy Invasion):

Despite its public stance on user privacy, Apple has been accused of enabling surveillance, particularly in cases where it complied with government requests for user data.

Concerns about the AirTags product, which has been misused for stalking and tracking people without consent, further dent Apple’s privacy reputation.

强迫劳动 (Forced Labor):

Apple has faced allegations of forced labor within its supply chain, particularly involving factories in China and other countries.

Investigations have linked Apple’s suppliers to Uyghur forced labor in China, where workers are allegedly coerced into producing components for Apple products.

Reports of abusive working conditions, including long hours, low pay, and unsafe environments, persist, despite Apple’s claims of enforcing ethical supplier standards.

Summary of Impacts:

Google: Dominance in tech markets, privacy violations, and abuse of its powerful position have led to antitrust scrutiny and fines worldwide.

Alchemy Technologies: Manipulative and deceptive marketing practices harm consumer trust and foster unethical advertising environments.

Apple: Allegations of monopolistic practices, breaches of privacy, and labor rights violations cast a shadow over its reputation as a tech innovator.

Each company’s actions have far-reaching consequences, affecting industries, consumers, and global labor markets. Addressing these issues would require stricter regulations, transparency, and corporate accountability.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6752f369-7f9c-800c-8ef8-c927a0069dc6

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Because Its The Law - Data Protection Laws: Understanding the Royal Familys Silence on Surrogacy by u/Oakthrees

Because… It’s The Law - Data Protection Laws: Understanding the Royal Family’s Silence on Surrogacy The persistent speculation about why the Royal Family hasn't publicly disclosed whether Meghan used a surrogate is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of data protection laws. These laws, notably the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and the UK's Data Protection Act 2018, serve as robust shields for personal and private information. They're especially stringent when it comes to sensitive personal data, which unequivocally includes health-related details.Applying this to the British royal family, suppose a family member chose surrogacy over natural childbirth. Such a choice is undeniably sensitive personal data. Disclosing it without explicit consent is not just a breach of etiquette; it's a blatant violation of these stringent data protection laws. These laws are built on pillars of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency in handling personal data, underscoring an individual's right to privacy and autonomy over their personal information.Turning to the media's role, their interest in the royals doesn't grant them a carte blanche to invade personal privacy. Any leak of such intimate details by a royal family member to the press would be a clear transgression of these legal frameworks.That's why you'll never hear this from the royal family, and why responsible news outlets wouldn't dare to publish it. This isn't just about respecting privacy; it's about adhering to laws that guard our most personal information. post link: https://ift.tt/ALVCfoa author: Oakthrees submitted: December 14, 2023 at 02:56AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[beardedmrbean]

What began with a call online by consumer advocacy groups to spurn stores for a single day resulted in a more than 50 percent plunge in sales across Croatia last Friday.

"We want to send an even stronger message that the Croatian market should finally become regulated and control mechanisms put in place," consumer advocate Josip Kelemen, who helped organise the boycott, said on Thursday.

His advocacy organisation now called for a more ambitious protest by targeting three large retail chains -- Eurospin, Lidl and DM -- for a one-week boycott starting on Thursday, over alleged price discrepancies with other EU countries.

The boycott will also target Coca-Cola and other carbonated drinks along with bottled water and detergents.

Croatians were also urged to avoid deliveries, banks, restaurants and cafes this Friday along with shopping online, paying bills or buying fuel for a day-long protest.

Labelling it an overall "payment boycott", Kelemen said it was aimed at sending a message "to all those who generated this unbearable situation, this natural disaster that has hit Croatian consumers, that we had enough".

Biting inflation

Similar calls for boycotts are growing across the Balkans, with social media posts in Bosnia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia imploring shoppers to stay home this Friday.

The protests in Croatia come after average food prices soared by more than 30 percent in the past three years, according to official figures, while prices for basic items like eggs or bread have jumped by nearly 60 and 50 percent respectively.

Economists, however, say retailers do not shoulder most of the blame for price rises.

Decades of declining agricultural production, an influx of imports and the economy's overreliance on tourism along with a bloated public sector, chronic labour shortages and a high value-added tax of 25 percent has fuelled much of the inflation.

Food commodity "deficits are huge, several billion euros of food is imported. This is not the case with other tourist countries, like Spain. They are able to feed tourists," said economist Damir Novotny.

Despite the economic complexities, public perception has increasingly homed in on retailers, with social media posts showing Croatians the prices for the same products abroad -- with vast differences.

Consumer groups have highlighted the price of a German brand of shampoo that costs 3.35 euros ($3.50) in Croatia -- which they say is 130 percent more than its price in Germany.

In Bulgaria, the price of the bottle of shampoo at the same retail chain is around 20 percent lower than in Croatia.

Consumers also point to the cost of domestic products that are cheaper abroad, where average wages are higher.

One kilogramme of a popular Croatia-made seasoning costs 7.69 euros locally compared to 6.35 euros at a Swedish discount grocery chain, according to data published by portal Index.hr.

Spillover

But anger is not only being directed at retailers, with public ire turning to the government.

"I boycotted last Friday and will do it again," Marko Knezevic, a repairman in the capital Zagreb, told AFP.

"It's also a message to the authorities since their policies over the years led to all this –- we destroyed production, but public administration is flourishing."

Others have begun crossing the border to nearby Slovenia and Italy in the search of cheaper goods.

Consumer groups have repeatedly complained that prices have risen steadily since Croatia adopted the euro as its currency in January 2023.

"What cost one (former Croatian currency) kuna now costs one euro," said Milena, a pensioner from Zagreb, echoing the feeling of many in the country of 3.8 million people.

Meanwhile, the government said Friday it would enlarge the list of products with protected price from current 30 to 70.

"The state reacted, but others must get involved also," Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said as he met with representatives of retail chains adding that "nobody would sink if prices were a little more moderate".

[ncs-swiss]

Formal Communiqué From: European Union To: Swiss National Council Subject: Switzerland’s Approach to EU Accession and Adherence to EU Legal Frameworks

Date: December 11, 2024

Honourable Members of the National Council of Switzerland,

The European Union (EU) recognizes Switzerland as a valued partner and close neighbor with a long-standing tradition of collaboration, mutual respect, and shared values. Your continued interest in closer association with the EU is a testament to our intertwined histories and economic interdependence.

However, the European Union wishes to express its unequivocal position regarding the foundational principles that underpin accession and integration into our union. The EU’s legal and regulatory framework, including cornerstone legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), reflects a unified vision of governance, economic cooperation, and respect for fundamental rights that all member states adhere to without reservation.

The EU has observed certain discussions and proposals from Swiss policymakers suggesting an intent to selectively adopt or alter key elements of EU law to accommodate domestic preferences. While the EU appreciates the unique characteristics of each member state and recognizes the importance of national contexts, selective application or “cherry-picking” of laws undermines the integrity and coherence of our Union.

Accession to the EU necessitates full alignment with the EU acquis—the body of rights and obligations binding all member states. Laws such as the GDPR are not merely administrative or sectoral policies but are essential to the single market, ensuring trust, security, and competitiveness in an increasingly digital world. Unilateral deviations from such laws would compromise the principles of equality and fairness that underpin the Union.

In light of this, the European Union wishes to make clear that: 1. Priority for Accession: Switzerland will not be afforded priority or accelerated pathways for EU accession if it seeks to adopt a selective or modified approach to EU laws. The EU’s legal framework must be embraced in its entirety, ensuring a level playing field for all member states. 2. Negotiation Preconditions: Any discussions on accession or deeper integration will be contingent on Switzerland’s demonstrated commitment to aligning fully with EU legislation, including GDPR, without unilateral alterations. 3. Institutional Framework: Switzerland must accept the jurisdiction of EU bodies, including the European Court of Justice, in matters of legal interpretation and dispute resolution relating to EU law.

The EU remains open to dialogue and is committed to fostering a constructive partnership. However, we urge the Swiss National Council to align its approach with the principles of mutual trust and shared responsibility that define EU membership.

We look forward to continued cooperation and hope for meaningful progress in discussions that honor the spirit of unity and collective purpose.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Petros Mavromichalis Ambassador of the European Union to Switzerland European Union Headquarters

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Ireland's privacy regulator is a gamekeeper-turned-poacher

This Saturday (May 20), I’ll be at the GAITHERSBURG Book Festival with my novel Red Team Blues; then on May 22, I’m keynoting Public Knowledge’s Emerging Tech conference in DC.

On May 23, I’ll be in TORONTO for a book launch that’s part of WEPFest, a benefit for the West End Phoenix, onstage with Dave Bidini (The Rheostatics), Ron Diebert (Citizen Lab) and the whistleblower Dr Nancy Olivieri.

When the EU passed its landmark General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it seemed like a privacy miracle. Despite the most aggressive lobbying Europe had ever seen, 500 million Europeans were now guaranteed a digital private life. Could this really be?

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/15/finnegans-snooze/#dirty-old-town

Well, yes…and no. Despite flaws (Right to Be Forgotten), the GDPR has strong, well-crafted, badly needed privacy protections. But to get those protections, Europeans need their privacy regulators to enforce the rules.

That’s where the GDPR miracle founders. Europe includes several tax-havens��— Malta, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland — that compete to offer the most favorable terms to international corporations and other criminals. For these havens, paying little to no tax is just table-stakes. As these countries vie to sell themselves out to giant companies, they compete to offer a favorable regulatory environment, insulating companies from lawsuits over corruption, labor abuses and other crimes.

All of this is made possible — and even encouraged — by the design of European federalism, which lets companies easily shift which flag of convenience they fly. Once a company re-homes in a country, it can force Europeans across the union to seek justice in that country’s courts, under the looming threat that the company will up sticks for another haven if the law doesn’t bend over backwards to protect corporate citizens from the grievances of flesh-and-blood humans.

Big Tech’s most aggressive privacy invaders have long flown Irish flags. Ireland is “headquarters” to Google, Meta, Tinder, Apple, Airbnb, Yahoo and many other tech companies. In exchange for locating a handful of jobs to Ireland, these companies are allowed to maintain the pretense that their global earnings are afloat in the Irish Sea, in a state of perfect, untaxable grace.

That cozy relationship meant that the US tech giants were well-situated to sabotage Ireland’s privacy regulator, who would be the first port of call for Europeans whose privacy had been violated by American firms. For many years, it’s been obvious that the Irish Data Protection Commission was a sleeping watchdog, with infinite tolerance for the companies that pretend to make Ireland their homes. 87% of Irish data protection claims involve just eight giant US companies (that pretend to be Irish).

But among for hardened GDPR warriors, the real extent of the Data Protection Commissioner’s uselessness is genuinely shocking. A new report from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties reveals that the DPC isn’t merely tolerant of privacy crimes, they’re gamekeepers turned poachers, active collaborators in privacy abuse:

https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/5-years-GDPR-crisis.pdf

The report’s headline figure really tells the story: the European Data Protection Board — which oversees Ireland’s DPC — overturns the Irish regulator’s judgments 75% of the time. It’s actually worse than it appears: that figure only includes appeals of the DPC’s enforcement actions, where the DPC bestirred itself to put on trousers and show up for work to investigate a privacy claim, only to find that the corporation was utterly blameless.

But the DPC almost never takes enforcement actions. Instead, the regulator remains in its pajamas, watching cartoons and eating breakfast cereal, and offers an “amicable resolution” (that is, a settlement) to the accused company. 83% of the cases brought before the DPC are settled with an “amicable resolution.”

Corporations can bargain for multiple, consecutive amicable resolutions, allowing them to repeatedly break the law and treat the fines — which they negotiate themselves — as part of the price of doing business.

This is illegal. European law demands that cases that involve repeat offenders, or that are likely to affect many people, must be fully investigated.

Ireland’s government has stonewalled on calls for an independent review of the DPC. The DPC continues to abet lawlessness, allowing corporations to use privacy invasive techniques for surveillance, discrimination and manipulation. In 2022, the DPC concluded 64% of its cases with mere reprimands — not even a slap on the wrist.

Meanwhile, the DPC trails the EU in issuing “compliance orders” — which directly regulate the conduct of privacy-invading companies — only issuing 49 such orders in the past 4.5 years. The DPC has only issues 28 of the GDPR’s “one-stop-shop” fines.

The EU has 26 other national privacy regulators, but under the GDPR, they aren’t allowed to act until the DPC delivers its draft decisions. The DPC is lavishly funded, with a budget in the EU’s top five, but all that money gets pissed up against a wall, with inaction ruling the day.

Despite the collusion between the tech giants and the Irish state, time is running out for America’s surveillance-crazed tech monopolists. The GDPR does allow Europeans to challenge the DPR’s do-nothing rulings in European court, after a long, meandering process. That process is finally bearing fruit: in 2021, Johnny Ryan and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties brought a case in Germany against the ad-tech lobby group IAB:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/16/inside-the-clock-tower/#inference

And the activist Max Schrems and the group NOYB brought a case against Google in Austria:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/15/out-here-everything-hurts/#noyb

But Europeans should not have to drag tech giants out of Ireland to get justice. It’s long past time for the EU to force Ireland to clean up its act. The EU Commission is set to publish a proposal on how to reform Ireland’s DPA, but more muscular action is needed. In the new report, the Irish Council For Civil Liberties calls on the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, to treat this issue with the urgency and seriousness that it warrants. As the ICCL says, “the EU can not be a regulatory superpower unless it enforces its own laws.”

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/15/finnegans-snooze/#dirty-old-town

[Image ID: A toddler playing with toy cars. The cars are Irish police cars. The toddler's head has been replaced with the menacing, glowing red eye of HAL9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey.' The toddler's knit cap is decorated with the logos for Apple, Google, Facebook and Tinder.]

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[taikeero-lecoredier]

Chat control email script (english)

Subject line: "2022/0155(COD)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the proposed introduction of "Chat Control,", also known as CSAM regulation This measure poses a serious threat to the privacy and fundamental rights of all EU citizens and stands in stark contradiction to the core principles that the European Union seeks to uphold.

Violation of Fundamental Rights

The proposed Chat Control contravenes Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantee the right to respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. The indiscriminate surveillance of private messages without specific suspicion or cause directly violates these fundamental rights. Contradiction to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets out stringent rules for the processing of personal data. The proposed indiscriminate surveillance and scanning of private messages before end-to-end encryption is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation enshrined in the GDPR. Specifically, Articles 5 and 6 of the GDPR, which govern the lawfulness and principles of data processing, would be violated by the introduction of such measures.

Technical and Ethical Concerns The implementation of Client-Side Scanning (CSS) on devices means that all messages and files are scanned on the user's device before being encrypted and sent. This effectively nullifies the protection offered by end-to-end encryption and opens the door to misuse and additional security vulnerabilities. Moreover, the technical capability to scan such content could be exploited by malicious actors to circumvent or by taking advantage of surveillance mechanisms Threat to Freedom of Expression and Trust in Digital Communication

Such far-reaching surveillance measures endanger not only privacy but also freedom of expression. The knowledge that their private messages are being scanned and monitored could significantly restrict individuals' willingness to freely express themselves. Additionally, trust in digital communication platforms would be severely undermined.

Call to Action

I urge you to take a strong stance against this disproportionate and unlawful measure. The privacy and digital rights of EU citizens must be safeguarded. It is imperative that we protect our fundamental rights and ensure transparency in the decision-making processes of our leaders.

Furthermore, given the current war happening in Ukraine, installing back doors in private communications would create more security vulnerabilities that Russia could exploit in order to launch cyber attacks within Europe and steal essential data. American officials have been recommending their citizens to use encrypted messaging following the multiple cyber attacks that targeted 8 telecom providers, including Verizon according to this article : https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-officials-urge-americans-use-encrypted-apps-cyberattack-rcna182694

For more detailed information on the Chat Control proposal and its implications, please refer to the following resource: https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Art. 10 GG , Art. 8 & 11 EU Charta , Art. 8 EMRK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

( This is the kind of arguments you can use when contacting your officials. I don't have a phone script ready yet,but you should familiarize yourself with your meps / prime ministers and tell them to keep opposing Chat Control,no matter what country you are in. It's best that you translate this script in your own language when contacting your officials and reword some parts so it doesnt sound repetitive if they are going to receive similar emails of that nature. )

Find your meps : https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?

If anyone knows a site where all the EU prime ministers are listed, let me know ! If you have no clue what im takling about,please check this post : https://www.tumblr.com/taikeero-lecoredier/769688553496215552/okayso-good-news-chat-control-still-didnt?source=share

[mariacallous]

Researchers found a vulnerability in a Kia web portal that allowed them to track millions of cars, unlock doors, honk horns, and even start engines in seconds, just by reading the car's license plate. The findings are the latest in a string of web bugs that have impacted dozen of carmakers. Meanwhile, a handful of Tesla Cybertrucks have been outfitted for war and are literally being-battle tested by Chechen forces fighting in Ukraine as part of Russia’s ongoing invasion.

As Israel escalates its attacks on Lebanon, civilians on both sides of the conflict have been receiving ominous text messages—and authorities in each country are accusing the other of psychological warfare. The US government has increasingly condemned Russia-backed media outlets like RT for working closely with Russian intelligence—and many digital platforms have removed or banned their content. But they’re still influential and trusted alternative sources of information in many parts of the world.

And there's more. Each week, we round up the privacy and security news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there.

New Digital Identity Guidelines Strike Back at Dreadful Password Policies

A new draft of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's “Digital Identity Guidelines” finally takes steps to eliminate reviled password management practices that have been shown to do more harm than good. The recommendations, which will be mandatory for US federal government entities and serve as guidelines for everyone else, ban the practice of requiring users to periodically change their account passwords, often every 90 days.

The policy of regularly changing passwords evolved out of a desire to ensure that people weren't choosing easily guessable or reused passwords; but in practice, it causes people to choose simple or formulaic passwords so they will be easier to keep track of. The new recommendations also ban “composition rules,” like requiring a certain number or mix of capital letters, numbers, and punctuation marks in each password. NIST writes in the draft that the goal of the Digital Identity Guidelines is to provide “foundational risk management processes and requirements that enable the implementation of secure, private, equitable, and accessible identity systems.”

DOJ Indicts Alleged Iranian Hackers Over Trump Campaign Breach

The US Department of Justice unsealed charges on Friday against three Iranian men who allegedly compromised Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and leaked stolen data to media outlets. Microsoft and Google warned last month that an Iranian state-sponsored hacking group known as APT42 had targeted both the Joe Biden and Donald Trump presidential campaigns, and successfully breached the Trump campaign. The DOJ claims the hackers compromised a dozen people as part of its operation, including a journalist, a human rights advocate, and several former US officials. More broadly, the US government has said in recent weeks that Iran is attempting to interfere in the 2024 election.

“The defendants’ own words made clear that they were attempting to undermine former President Trump’s campaign in advance of the 2024 U.S. presidential election,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a press conference on Friday. "We know that Iran is continuing with its brazen efforts to stoke discord, erode confidence in the US electoral process, and advance its malign activities.”

Irish Regulator Fines Meta More Than $100 Million Over 2019 Password Lapse

The Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta €91 million, or roughly $101 million, on Friday for a password storage lapse in 2019 that violated the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. Following a report by Krebs on Security, the company acknowledged in March 2019 that a bug in its password management systems had caused hundreds of millions of Facebook, Facebook Lite, and Instagram passwords to be stored without protection in plaintext in an internal platform. Ireland's privacy watchdog launched its investigation into the incident in April 2019.

“It is widely accepted that user passwords should not be stored in plaintext, considering the risks of abuse that arise from persons accessing such data," Irish DPC deputy commissioner Graham Doyle said in a statement. “It must be borne in mind that the passwords, the subject of consideration in this case, are particularly sensitive, as they would enable access to users’ social media accounts.”

The Tor Project and the Tails Privacy Operating System Are Merging

The digital anonymity nonprofit the Tor Project is merging with privacy- and anonymity-focused Linux-based operating system Tails. Pavel Zoneff, the Tor Project’s communications director, wrote in a blog post on Thursday that the move will facilitate collaboration and reduce costs, while expanding both groups' reach. “Tor and Tails provide essential tools to help people around the world stay safe online,” he wrote. “By joining forces, these two privacy advocates will pool their resources to focus on what matters most: ensuring that activists, journalists, other at-risk and everyday users will have access to improved digital security tools.”