• it_depends_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That won’t work in the sense on page 35, Article 2 definition (f) it says that this applies to

        (ii)an interpersonal communications service;
        (iv) an internet access service;
    

    as well, meaning your phone provider and ISP. It’s highly the approach to enforce this would couple e-SIM and some app on your phone or computer that things have to be routed through. Or you just don’t get cell/internet service.

    • eleitl@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This has not yet happened even in the most authoritarian jurisdictions, with the possible exception of North Korea. The Internet is built with open protocols so any restrictions will have to be implemented on the network edge. There is no vendor locking for on-prem routers in multiple countries. As long as all purpose computers are not illegal you can still use strong encryption and anonymizing services on your end devices on your own network. So any mandatory surveillance and tracking will have no power there.

      • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I would be happy to be wrong.

        The entire “proposal” is absolutely crazy from start to finish anyway. It’s just that these companies will have to do ______ or be labeled or held liable for aiding in the distribution of CP.

        Who knows what they will come up with.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Such a tech restriction would instantly kill hotspot capability of a phone. Not that I think they corrupt traitors in the EU wouldn’t want to try it anyways.