germanier

Although Telegram still claims

> To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments. https://telegram.org/faq

and the Telegram transparency bot states when queried from Germany

> No transparency report is available for your region. If any IP addresses or phone numbers are shared in accordance with 8.3 of the Privacy Policy, we will publish a transparency report within 6 months of it happening and will continue publishing semiannual reports.

German prosecutors seem to have received such information

> There were then some direct talks between representatives of the Ministry of Interior and the Telegram founder and boss, the Russian Pavel Durov. It was said that a willingness to cooperate was signaled. Telegram even named a direct contact person for the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). ... The BKA has requested such data as email or IP addresses in "230 exemplary cases" so far. Only in slightly more than 60 cases was there even a response, and only in 25 cases was data actually transmitted. translated from https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/wdr/telegram-justiz-1...

So someone is lying and I doubt it's the German government which is trying to pressure them to give up even more data.

Yes, you are right. I was was confusing it with the ePrivacy regulation which still is in the works. The above text is from the directive though.

One necessitates the other. Anyway, arguing that anyone who cares about security can trust society to protect them but those who care about privacy should not, is a really poor argument.

I know next to nothing about the "global population of internet users". I know a fair bit about the EU population and I can assure you that it's a very substantial proportion.

I do understand. That's why I also understand that the only solution to that is on a political and not on an individual level.

It's not in force yet, not even passed.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal was broken two years after the GDPR passed. It has been in the works long before Trump announced his campaign.

I have given my landlord a key recently so that he can check the smoke alarm and take the water meter reading while I'm at work. I trust that he didn't install a hidden camera even though nothing could have stopped him apart from "being a decent human being" and "not wanting to commit a crime". Not every protection needs to on a technological level. I'd rather live in a society where we have other tools available than one where I have to take each and every matter into my own hand. This is what my analogy showed.

Although these things are called "cookie banner", it doesn't matter whether you need/use cookies or do it server-side. It's about the data that is being processed and the intent, not the technical implementation.

I don't live in a heavily fortified home only accessible through a drawbridge but still give a fuck about the privacy of my little city flat that you could probably enter with a heavy kick.

Modern society enables miracles.

It's hard to accept because many, many people won't agree with you and do give a fuck.

It's not enough that you "want to". You have to weigh your interest and that of the users against each other and would probably come to the conclusion that you can process that data for that purpose without consent if you aggregate it.

It's not legal. It's just not rigorously enforced.

It was promised that things get better with the proposed ePrivacy regulation. Let's see.

A creditor ID and a direct debit agreement with some bank, yes. After you have those, (usually) the banks won't verify individual transactions.

Yes, if you set up a direct debit agreement with a bank you can do that. If you'd actually try what you suggest it will be revoked quickly and charges filed as your identity is known.

The SEPA mandate is between the parties in the transaction. While banks require their existence, it is usually not shared with the banks involved.

Simplified, the seller is responsible as long as the buyer can reasonably expect the feature to work based on public statements by the seller and their supply chain (including the manufacturer).

Stuff like that is covered by the Sales of Goods Directive (2019/771)

This can't be true. Any method must be at least as good as a coin toss. If it's worse you can just bit flip the result and end up better than the coin.

> For spare-parts and components that legal guarantee for consumers doesn't apply

There is no such exception.

That's basically a language/cultural issue - in some places the semantics of the word "tax" are more narrowly defined than in others leading to discussions like these.

That's like saying anyone who owns property is a "part of the government" because "the government" has granted them special authority to enforce their property rights.

In Germany, the right of those broadcasters to collect that fee is derived directly from the constitution, just like the right to own property is.

A simple ad campaign running for a few weeks hardly reaches everybody. Not even close to.

Which is why countries like Germany roll out federated decentralized login solutions – it's just a really slow process due to (among many other factors) the humongous number of stakeholders to involve.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Estonia has a much higher than average number of elderly using such online services.

If you for any reason don't want to, you can still visit a government office in person to do your business.

After recognizing that risk, Estonia famously signed an international treaty with Luxemburg "in the spirit of the Vienna Convention" to host an offsite backup (and plans to extend such initiatives).

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/aktilisa/2280/3201/8002/Lux_Info...

Not sure where you read that it only applies to companies - certainly not in the GDPR itself. It also applies to public entities - courts, government agencies, etc.

It wouldn't apply in this case due to other reasons though.

Certain kind of income is taxed even without tax residency (so-called beschränkte Steuerpflicht). This is independent of citizenship though.

Only for public servants working and living abroad German citizenship is relevant when it comes to taxation (this concerns mostly diplomats and such).

Note that in this case, a two-thirds majority in the general assembly of members have to confirm the kick-out, which is judging by my experience in other associations a really high bar to clear.

In any case, such a decision can be review by civil court as well whether it actually met the conditions laid out in their charter.

Even they often try to cross the line, all German public agencies including police are required (by law in the states, by constitution for the federal level) to answer journalists' questions.