The EU is trying to do this at an EU level (and has been for years). As well as an individual country level, Sweden seems likely to pass a similar law in 2026.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/signal_will_withdraw_from_sweden/
https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/
The EU is trying to do this at an EU level (and has been for years). As well as an individual country level, Sweden seems likely to pass a similar law in 2026.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/signal_will_withdraw_from_sweden/
https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/
Yep lol
It is funny being one of the few somewhat rightwing people on here and getting called a tankie
I posted it because of the crypto connection, also posted it in c/news
Weird, I didn’t even get that, but thanks for the archive link
What? I didn’t get a paywall so I assumed there wasn’t one sorry
https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ee74c1b5b589619a13c6318c9fbd0d6ac7c334a.camel@HansenPartnership.com/
Yes I would agree, but its unclear if this again means all Russians who are employed by any company. Because all Russian companies are sanctioned
But its not clear that the compliance requirements are about being government affiliated…
Also apparently they are intending to re-add those who can be confirmed as unaffiliated with the Russian government.
Do you have a source for this? Because that would be really good news.
I don’t think this is about security implications, but I may be wrong. My understanding is this is related to the export sanctions, meant to hamper the Russian economy.
Yep, my reading of the law is the ban is specifically to do with “providing software services to Russians” and somehow collaborating on open-source software would be that. But I don’t entirely understand how.
You really want to go the pharmacy and hand them your ID and insurance card while the look you up and say “actually these condoms are ‘ribbed for her pleasure’ rather than ‘skin-feel’ so are not covered, also you’re over your condom allowance”. That would be so awkward barely anyone would bother.
I’ve never watched the movie but people have definitely gotten inheritance while marrying into a “lower class” before
Just means they’ll get harder, but maybe not for people, just needs to be harder for a computer
Depends on the case, sometimes its unavoidable.
Anybody else would have been rendered penniless within a year, tops.
Nobody else has ever been ordered to pay that much, much less in a suit for speech. Wrongful death lawsuits are awarded less than this.
What am I supposed to say “no you insulting and attacking me isn’t true”. Like Chomsky said “The person who throws the mud always wins. Because there’s no way of responding to such charges.” All I said is the way I read it they’re saying “if this is true” which is inherently questioning it. That may not be what they meant, I can’t read their mind. But yes go ahead and insult me, there’s not point in me denying it and you know that, that’s why you said the insult.
you won’t listen to reason and literally deny logic.
Your reasoning is that that is the phrasing in formal logic. My point is how people converse doesn’t necessarily follow formal logic. So that may not be what she meant. I can’t say she definitely meant what I said- but that is the impression I got. And as I said if it’s how I as a fluent English speaker interpreted it, then it may also be how she meant it.
It doesn’t matter where its hosted