Show Navigation
Notices by Éibhear (eibhear)
-
There's still some hope:
- It's not fully passed. While the parliament has approved it, the Council has yet to do so. It may fall there (though, unlikely)
- As it's a directive, it then needs to be passed into law in each member state. I will be arguing and campaigning in my country to ensure that strong anti-abuse measures are included in that phase. It will provide *some* protections.
- The filter-everything model -- according to some -- violates the provisions of the #GDPR, and maybe even go against one or more of Arcticles 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Charter Fundamental Rights (covering privacy, speech and association -- Article 9 covers freedom to marry, and is probably not involved...).
My prediction: it will eventually be ruled illegal by the EU courts, like the data-retention directive, but only after some damage has been caused.
Other than those of us who care about the intersection of rights and technology, I see no one else caring too much about it, TBH.
-
That issue report suggests to me that Pale Moon is one of those organisations that love "open source" because they don't have to do all the development work, just reap the benefits.
-
@bob I once attempted to correct RMS from the floor of a packed lecture theatre with a mic in my hand. It didn't end well.
-
That reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a highly qualified DBA 10 years ago, who claimed that having the business logic running as stored code in the DB made the application more portable.
His working assumption, though, was that one would want to port the front-end from one technology to another, but, having chosen the best DB engine (the one he was qualified in), the developer, of course, would not be planning to port away from it!
He did concede, though, that proper code separation was necessary regardless of such considerations.