There's also this one: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/WK-11640-2025-...
The first one appears to be the result of the of the second which called member states to submit their opinions.
1,367 karma · joined October 8, 2016
Especially interested in systems scaling & IAM and also general interest in most of thing on backend side.
You can reach me via <username>@<username>.net
There's also this one: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/WK-11640-2025-...
The first one appears to be the result of the of the second which called member states to submit their opinions.
I don't think DMCA has anything to do with that though I did wish everyone hated it. You probably meant GDPR.
As for latter Sweden, doesn't currently have capacity for it and I don't think they have been very interested in increasing it, currently Finland often benefits from the fact that there isn't enough transport capacity between Southern and Northern Sweden electric grids so Finland gets some cheap electricity from there.
So you make it so that when the user starts the application you ask them "Your current configuration allows government, and probably some hackers as well, to see your messages. Do you want to enable encryption? Your government's suggestion is that you should say 'No' here. That's also what the foreign intelligence agencies suggest" "Yes, enable encryption" "No". That's clearly opt-in, you even provide the government's recommendation. And of course you then ask that whenever they open the application if they selected "No", we have learned that it's completely fine to keep asking same question from the user.
Oh, and make sure that the other party is clearly aware that the other side has not enabled encryption.
Some more details:
https://noyb.eu/en/eu-commission-about-wreck-core-principles... Textual analysis of the changes from the original leaked draft (especially "Overview Table of the Draft & Comments by noyb")
https://noyb.eu/en/digital-omnibus-first-legal-analysis Video about the proposed changes (there are some changes compared to the leaked draft)
This actually is already the case, see the recent CJEU C‑413/23 P. Currently the main question is if the recipient has a way to unmask the user. In case of IP address the answer is almost always yes since the recipient could ask competent authority to unmask the IP address if there is crime involved. That was the exact reasoning provided in the Breyer case.
In C‑413/23 P the recipient didn't have any reasonable way to map the opinion to real person so it was determined that it's not PII from recipient's POV but it was from the data controller's.
One of the issues in the new proposal is that it lowers the standard quite a bit compared to C‑413/23 P.
The list contains emails which have been part of some other breaches. In my domain I have 2 emails that were exposed that weren't my normal email address. One of them was a typo that I used sign up for one service which was later breached. The other one was something someone used to register to service that I have never used & that service was later breached. Those emails have never been used for anything else as far as I'm aware.
Of course judging from what posted there are likely some other services as well which were breached but wasn't noticed/published until now.
The only alternative to court is Consumer Disputes Board but their resolutions are just recommendations & Finnair has a long history of ignoring them so spending 2-3 years there seems like waste of time.
So in my case the next step is to find lawyer.
GDPR violations would normally be handled by the national DPA. They can investigate things by their own decision but normally you need to try to exercise your rights (in this case probably ask copies of your data, information regarding processing & recipients of your personal data), get denial from data controller or find issues on their reply and then make complaint to DPA. They will then investigate & give decision. You or data controller can then appeal it to court if either disagrees.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> Article 7 Requirements of the elements categorised as possession
> 1. Payment service providers shall adopt measures to mitigate the risk that the elements of strong customer authentication categorised as possession are used by unauthorised parties.
> 2. The use by the payer of those elements shall be subject to measures designed to prevent replication of the elements.
Karaoke and typesetting can of course take longer (I remember someone complaining about how much effort it was to typeset every single book name in some scene that had a bookshelf) though karaoke is usually ~3 minutes of unique content (OP & ED) per ~12 episodes. Typesetting depends heavily on anime, like isekais don't usually have a lot Japanese writing anyway.
Just to be clear, I currently live in the US. In Finland some banks offer email/SMS notifications but they often have fees associated with them.
Frequent notifications can create notification fatigue and that's not really great either as I'm sure anyone who gets false positive alerts from monitoring system knows.
For example if the face verification failed and you need to file an appeal which requires uploading government ID. That's likely sizeable number of users, especially since the breach happened shortly after the requirement was implemented and many existing users had to do it.
Yes but you actually need to notice that it happened which requires them to actively monitor their transactions on all of their accounts. They then need to use their own time to report these transactions and wait for banks to resolve it. And that's just in the good case where bank doesn't dispute it. If they do, you now need to file official complaint with regulators or sue them. Former can probably be done by highly educated people by themselves (others likely need some legal help), in latter case you are going to need a lawyer. I'm not even sure if you are eligible to recover costs for those.
Why is this better than just not allowing pulls without explicit authorization by the consumer (SEPA Direct Debit) or just asking consumer to actually send the funds (bank transfer)?
I don't know why their network setup wouldn't support DHCP, that's extremely common especially in "enterprise" switches via DHCP forwarding.
Possibly to avoid needing NAT (or VPN) gateway that can handle 100Gbps.
Not really an opinion but it can be a belief. I'm not sure why we are okay with people believing that Earth is ~6000 years old, but not with someone believing that we are in a simulation and everything before e.g. year 1999 is just a collective memory fabrication.
The in-app notification that I got was a pop up which contained some buttons and some images. There was no text. Just in case it was some dark mode issue I checked the DOM and I couldn't find any text there either. I just clicked outside the modal and it went away. I assumed it was some announcement about some new feature and ignored it.
I did end up seeing the news yesterday in Reddit (I'm having issues getting the research tool to actually being used, tried to see if there was some recent changes) but it's unlikely that I was the only one who experienced modal the issue & if those didn't follow the tech news they could easily miss the change.