cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/375169
> Containers of tomato paste exported from Xinjiang to Italy are the subject of domestic criminal and international complaints filed by rights lawyers on behalf of Uyghur advocacy groups who allege that the goods were produced using Uyghur forced labor. > > The shipment was among 82 containers of agricultural products from China’s state-owned Xinjiang Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. shipped by rail and sea from Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to southern Italy in late April, according to the plaintiffs. > > The shipment also sparked outrage among Italian farmers who protested against the arrival of the cheaper processed tomato products from China in what they said were unfair imports. > > The move comes less than two months after the European Parliament approved a new regulation banning products made with force labor from entering the European Union. The EU’s 27 member countries must approve the Forced Labour Regulation for it to enter into force and will have three years to implement it. “This legal challenge addresses both violations of fundamental principles of human dignity and international law instruments, as well as calling for the seizure of these recently imported goods under national law,” said a statement issued by these groups on June 3.
As well as the large-scale installation of surveillance systems with facial recognition technology in urban areas, the authorities have sought to monitor opponents, activists and journalists, says a new report by BIRN.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/375357
> cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/373442 > > > Archived link > > > > Here is the report (pdf). > > > > Serbian authorities have adopted invasive surveillance practices and facial recognition technology to monitor political opponents, civic activists and critical journalists, says a BIRN report entitled ‘Digital Surveillance in Serbia – A Threat to Human Rights?’, published on Friday. > > > > Equipment from Chinese manufacturers, such as Dahua and Hickvision, predominates. > > > > Serbia’s aspirations for EU membership mean that it faces pressure to adhere to EU standards on data protection and privacy as well as cybersecurity. However, Serbia has simultaneously strengthened ties with authoritarian countries, especially China and Russia.
As well as the large-scale installation of surveillance systems with facial recognition technology in urban areas, the authorities have sought to monitor opponents, activists and journalists, says a new report by BIRN.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/373442
> Archived link > > Here is the report (pdf). > > Serbian authorities have adopted invasive surveillance practices and facial recognition technology to monitor political opponents, civic activists and critical journalists, says a BIRN report entitled ‘Digital Surveillance in Serbia – A Threat to Human Rights?’, published on Friday. > > Equipment from Chinese manufacturers, such as Dahua and Hickvision, predominates. > > Serbia’s aspirations for EU membership mean that it faces pressure to adhere to EU standards on data protection and privacy as well as cybersecurity. However, Serbia has simultaneously strengthened ties with authoritarian countries, especially China and Russia.
Containers of tomato paste exported from Xinjiang to Italy are the subject of domestic criminal and international complaints filed by rights lawyers on behalf of Uyghur advocacy groups who allege that the goods were produced using Uyghur forced labor.
The shipment was among 82 containers of agricultural products from China’s state-owned Xinjiang Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Investment (Group) Co., Ltd. shipped by rail and sea from Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to southern Italy in late April, according to the plaintiffs.
The shipment also sparked outrage among Italian farmers who protested against the arrival of the cheaper processed tomato products from China in what they said were unfair imports.
The move comes less than two months after the European Parliament approved a new regulation banning products made with force labor from entering the European Union. The EU’s 27 member countries must approve the Forced Labour Regulation for it to enter into force and will have three years to implement it. “This legal challenge addresses both violations of fundamental principles of human dignity and international law instruments, as well as calling for the seizure of these recently imported goods under national law,” said a statement issued by these groups on June 3.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/374497
> UniCredit said on Monday it was challenging the terms set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for the Italian bank to cut its exposure to Russia, and seeking a ruling from the European Union's General Court, as well as a freezing of the request in the meantime. > > Euro zone banks still involved with Russia more than two years after Moscow invaded Ukraine have come under growing pressure in recent weeks from the bloc's supervisors, as well as U.S. authorities, over their ties to the country. > > A complex regulatory backdrop, involving Western sanctions against Moscow and local laws in Russia where the Italian group runs a retail bank, meant it had to "seek clarity and certainty" on the actions it needed to take, UniCredit said in a statement two and a half years after Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. > > After Austria's Raiffeisen, UniCredit has the biggest exposure to Russia, where it runs a top 15 bank, among European lenders. > > Raiffeisen has no plans to take legal action against the ECB over the request to reduce its Russia-related business, a spokesperson has said. > > "For anyone who believes that Ukraine's fight against Russia is important for the security of Europe, the fact that UniCredit stayed in Russia, made profits, and is now suing the ECB over their attempts to get it to leave, this doesn't look good," said Nicolas Veron of Brussels think tank Bruegel.
UniCredit said on Monday it was challenging the terms set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for the Italian bank to cut its exposure to Russia, and seeking a ruling from the European Union's General Court, as well as a freezing of the request in the meantime.
Euro zone banks still involved with Russia more than two years after Moscow invaded Ukraine have come under growing pressure in recent weeks from the bloc's supervisors, as well as U.S. authorities, over their ties to the country.
A complex regulatory backdrop, involving Western sanctions against Moscow and local laws in Russia where the Italian group runs a retail bank, meant it had to "seek clarity and certainty" on the actions it needed to take, UniCredit said in a statement two and a half years after Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine.
After Austria's Raiffeisen, UniCredit has the biggest exposure to Russia, where it runs a top 15 bank, among European lenders.
Raiffeisen has no plans to take legal action against the ECB over the request to reduce its Russia-related business, a spokesperson has said.
"For anyone who believes that Ukraine's fight against Russia is important for the security of Europe, the fact that UniCredit stayed in Russia, made profits, and is now suing the ECB over their attempts to get it to leave, this doesn't look good," said Nicolas Veron of Brussels think tank Bruegel.
As well as the large-scale installation of surveillance systems with facial recognition technology in urban areas, the authorities have sought to monitor opponents, activists and journalists, says a new report by BIRN.
Here is the report (pdf).
Serbian authorities have adopted invasive surveillance practices and facial recognition technology to monitor political opponents, civic activists and critical journalists, says a BIRN report entitled ‘Digital Surveillance in Serbia – A Threat to Human Rights?’, published on Friday.
Equipment from Chinese manufacturers, such as Dahua and Hickvision, predominates.
Serbia’s aspirations for EU membership mean that it faces pressure to adhere to EU standards on data protection and privacy as well as cybersecurity. However, Serbia has simultaneously strengthened ties with authoritarian countries, especially China and Russia.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/352534
> - China implemented new regulations on Monday under its toughened counterespionage law, which enables authorities to inspect smartphones, personal computers and other electronic devices, raising fears among expatriates and foreign businesspeople about possible arbitrary enforcement. > > - A Japanese travel agency official said the new regulations could further prevent tourists from coming to China. Some Japanese companies have told their employees not to bring smartphones from Japan when they make business trips to the neighboring country, according to officials from the companies. > > > The new rules, which came into effect one year after the revised anti-espionage law expanded the definition of espionage activities, empower Chinese national security authorities to inspect data, including emails, pictures, and videos stored on electronic devices. > > Such inspections can be conducted without warrants in emergencies. If officers are unable to examine electronic devices on-site, they are authorized to have those items brought to designated places, according to the regulations. > > It remains unclear what qualifies as emergencies under the new rules. Foreign individuals and businesses are now expected to face increased surveillance by Chinese authorities as a result of these regulations. > > A 33-year-old British teacher told Kyodo News at a Beijing airport Monday that she refrains from using smartphones for communications. A Japanese man in his 40s who visited the Chinese capital for a business trip said he will "try to avoid attracting attention" from security authorities in the country. > > In June, China's State Security Ministry said the new regulations will target "individuals and organizations related to spy groups," and ordinary passengers will not have their smartphones inspected at airports. However, a diplomatic source in Beijing noted that authorities' explanations have not sufficiently clarified what qualifies as spying activities. > > Last week, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council upgraded its travel warning for mainland China, advising against unnecessary trips due to Beijing's recent tightening of regulations aimed at safeguarding national security. > > In May, China implemented a revised law on safeguarding state secrets, which includes measures to enhance the management of secrets at military facilities.
- China implemented new regulations on Monday under its toughened counterespionage law, which enables authorities to inspect smartphones, personal computers and other electronic devices, raising fears among expatriates and foreign businesspeople about possible arbitrary enforcement.
- A Japanese travel agency official said the new regulations could further prevent tourists from coming to China. Some Japanese companies have told their employees not to bring smartphones from Japan when they make business trips to the neighboring country, according to officials from the companies.
The new rules, which came into effect one year after the revised anti-espionage law expanded the definition of espionage activities, empower Chinese national security authorities to inspect data, including emails, pictures, and videos stored on electronic devices.
Such inspections can be conducted without warrants in emergencies. If officers are unable to examine electronic devices on-site, they are authorized to have those items brought to designated places, according to the regulations.
It remains unclear what qualifies as emergencies under the new rules. Foreign individuals and businesses are now expected to face increased surveillance by Chinese authorities as a result of these regulations.
A 33-year-old British teacher told Kyodo News at a Beijing airport Monday that she refrains from using smartphones for communications. A Japanese man in his 40s who visited the Chinese capital for a business trip said he will "try to avoid attracting attention" from security authorities in the country.
In June, China's State Security Ministry said the new regulations will target "individuals and organizations related to spy groups," and ordinary passengers will not have their smartphones inspected at airports. However, a diplomatic source in Beijing noted that authorities' explanations have not sufficiently clarified what qualifies as spying activities.
Last week, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council upgraded its travel warning for mainland China, advising against unnecessary trips due to Beijing's recent tightening of regulations aimed at safeguarding national security.
In May, China implemented a revised law on safeguarding state secrets, which includes measures to enhance the management of secrets at military facilities.
I have been thinking the same. Maybe ghost.org's federation over ActivityPub can solve the problem?
Do social networks and their algorithms really amplify political hostility and polarisation? Interdisciplinary research nuances this pessimistic view.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/341702
> Once upon a time, newly minted graduates dreamt of creating online social media that would bring people closer together. > > That dream is now all but a distant memory. In 2024, there aren’t many ills social networks don’t stand accused of: the platforms are singled out for spreading “fake news”, for serving as Russian and Chinese vehicles to destabilise democracies, as well as for capturing our attention and selling it to shadowy merchants through micro targeting. The popular success of documentaries and essays on the allegedly huge social costs of social media illustrates this. > > - Studies suggest that if individuals regularly clash over political issues online, this is partly due to psychological and socioeconomic factors independent of digital platforms. > > - In economically unequal and less democratic countries, individuals are most often victims of online hostility on social media (e.g., insults, threats, harassment, etc.). A phenomenon which seems to derive from frustrations generated by more repressive social environments and political regimes. > > - individuals who indulge most in online hostility are also those who are higher in status-driven risk taking. This personality trait corresponds to an orientation towards dominance, i.e., a propensity to seek to submit others to one’s will, for instance through intimidation. According to our cross-cultural data, individuals with this type of dominant personality are more numerous in unequal and non-democratic countries. > > - Similarly, independent analyses show that dominance is a key element in the psychology of political conflict, as it also predicts more sharing of “fake news” mocking or insulting political opponents, and more attraction to offline political conflict, in particular. > > - n summary, online political hostility appears to be largely the product of the interplay between particular personalities and social contexts repressing individual aspirations. It is the frustrations associated with social inequality that have made these people more aggressive, activating tendencies to see the world in terms of “us” vs “them”. > > - On a policy level, if we are to bring about a more harmonious Internet (and civil society), we will likely have to tackle wealth inequality and make our political institutions more democratic. > > - Recent analyses also remind us that social networks operate less as a mirror than as a distorting prism for the diversity of opinions in society. Outraged and potentially insulting political posts are generally written by people who are more committed to express themselves and more radical than the average person, whether it’s to signal their commitments, express anger, or mobilise others to join political causes. > > - Even when they represent a relatively small proportion of the written output on the networks, moralistic and hostile posts tend to be promoted by algorithms programmed to push forward content capable of attracting attention and triggering responses, of which divisive political messages are an important part. > > - On the other hand, the majority of users, who are more moderate and less dogmatic, are more reluctant to get involved in political discussions that rarely reward good faith in argumentation and often escalate into outbursts of hatred. > > - Social media use seems to contribute to increasing political hostility and polarisation through at least one mechanism: exposure to caricatural versions of the political convictions of one’s rivals. > > - The way in which most people express their political convictions – both on social media and at the coffee machine – is rather lacking in nuance and tactfulness. It tends to reduce opposing positions to demonised caricatures, and is less concerned with persuading the other side than with signaling devotion to particular groups or causes, galvanising people who already agree with you, and maintaining connections with like-minded friends.
Do social networks and their algorithms really amplify political hostility and polarisation? Interdisciplinary research nuances this pessimistic view.
Once upon a time, newly minted graduates dreamt of creating online social media that would bring people closer together.
That dream is now all but a distant memory. In 2024, there aren’t many ills social networks don’t stand accused of: the platforms are singled out for spreading “fake news”, for serving as Russian and Chinese vehicles to destabilise democracies, as well as for capturing our attention and selling it to shadowy merchants through micro targeting. The popular success of documentaries and essays on the allegedly huge social costs of social media illustrates this.
-
Studies suggest that if individuals regularly clash over political issues online, this is partly due to psychological and socioeconomic factors independent of digital platforms.
-
In economically unequal and less democratic countries, individuals are most often victims of online hostility on social media (e.g., insults, threats, harassment, etc.). A phenomenon which seems to derive from frustrations generated by more repressive social environments and political regimes.
-
individuals who indulge most in online hostility are also those who are higher in status-driven risk taking. This personality trait corresponds to an orientation towards dominance, i.e., a propensity to seek to submit others to one’s will, for instance through intimidation. According to our cross-cultural data, individuals with this type of dominant personality are more numerous in unequal and non-democratic countries.
-
Similarly, independent analyses show that dominance is a key element in the psychology of political conflict, as it also predicts more sharing of “fake news” mocking or insulting political opponents, and more attraction to offline political conflict, in particular.
-
n summary, online political hostility appears to be largely the product of the interplay between particular personalities and social contexts repressing individual aspirations. It is the frustrations associated with social inequality that have made these people more aggressive, activating tendencies to see the world in terms of “us” vs “them”.
-
On a policy level, if we are to bring about a more harmonious Internet (and civil society), we will likely have to tackle wealth inequality and make our political institutions more democratic.
-
Recent analyses also remind us that social networks operate less as a mirror than as a distorting prism for the diversity of opinions in society. Outraged and potentially insulting political posts are generally written by people who are more committed to express themselves and more radical than the average person, whether it’s to signal their commitments, express anger, or mobilise others to join political causes.
-
Even when they represent a relatively small proportion of the written output on the networks, moralistic and hostile posts tend to be promoted by algorithms programmed to push forward content capable of attracting attention and triggering responses, of which divisive political messages are an important part.
-
On the other hand, the majority of users, who are more moderate and less dogmatic, are more reluctant to get involved in political discussions that rarely reward good faith in argumentation and often escalate into outbursts of hatred.
-
Social media use seems to contribute to increasing political hostility and polarisation through at least one mechanism: exposure to caricatural versions of the political convictions of one’s rivals.
-
The way in which most people express their political convictions – both on social media and at the coffee machine – is rather lacking in nuance and tactfulness. It tends to reduce opposing positions to demonised caricatures, and is less concerned with persuading the other side than with signaling devotion to particular groups or causes, galvanising people who already agree with you, and maintaining connections with like-minded friends.
GPB International, a subsidiary of Russia’s Gazprombank, has been operating in Luxembourg for over a decade. It survived the sanctions imposed on Russia for annexing Crimea, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine brought the bank record profits. Meduza special correspondent Margarita Liutova explain...
-
GPB International, a subsidiary of Russia’s Gazprombank, has been operating in Luxembourg for over a decade. It survived the sanctions imposed on Russia for annexing Crimea, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine brought the bank record profits.
-
Neither the EU nor the US have imposed blocking sanctions on the bank, allowing it to continue using the SWIFT system and conduct international payments. Gazprombank’s special status is a consequence of Europe’s dependence on Russian energy resources, primarily gas. Since payments for Russian energy supplies are made through Gazprombank, from the very start, the West decided not to impose restrictive measures, economists researching on sanctions say.
-
Though it’s based in Luxembourg, GPB International is no ordinary European bank: it’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia’s Gazprombank, whose co-owners include people from Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.
-
Gazprombank’s Luxembourg subsidiary has never been publicly linked to the president’s inner circle. It hasn’t appeared in any high-profile document leaks or investigations by European law enforcement agencies.
-
Luxembourg is a convenient jurisdiction for many financial operations: the country’s legislation makes it easy to open companies, and its tax system is beneficial for investors (e.g., favorable dividend taxation). Many Russian banks and financial organizations, both state-owned and private, have taken advantage of this. For example, Alfa-Bank’s parent company, ABH Holdings SA, is registered in Luxembourg. Businessmen Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven control the bank through this entity.
@BakerBagel@midwest.social The "American aligned entities" seek alliances because of China's aggression, and they do so by collaborating not just with America but also with each other, e.g., Japan, the Philipines, Australia, and others. These countries collaborates voluntarily with each other because of China's imperialistic behaviour in the region, not because China is "boxed in" by any Western "entity".
Beijing has been disputing a lot of its neighbours' sovereignty on land and at sea, including India's and Russia's, and neither India nor Russia are exactly what I would call "American aligned entities". As @Buffalox already said, even the single-party communist country Vietnam with a similar authoritarian system seeks stronger ties with the USA rather China.
Taiwan is of massive strategic value because it would allow Chinese vessels to access the Pacific Ocean unimpeded.
China has been accessing the Pacific Ocean unimpeded for decades now, no one questions that. The reasons why China wants control over Taiwan are manifold, one being Taiwan's prominent role in the global supply chain, another is that it would give China better access to the South China Sea and its estimated reserves of 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil.
Yeah, as you mention Vietnam: the interesting bit here maybe is that Vietnam -a single-party country with a similar totalitarian approach like China- appears to seek closer ties to the U.S. rather then to Beijing, at least that's my interpretation of the country/'s political moves over the last year or so.
Yeah, they work in a huge network mainly in Europe. As always, we should never trust blindly, but Epicenter appears to do a solid work. I have been disagreeing with what they said in the last years on some incidents, but all in all they do a good work. At least that's my opinion.
Epicenter Works is a digital rights organizations based in Austria.
You may have a particular perception of reality -a narrative- and then infer a claim. But it is a completely different thing if you have a claim and then seek to construct a narrative.
What this incident tells us is that the Chinese government doesn't know itself how to justify its claims, so it urges academics to find something to justify the claims of sovereignty over the sea (and the sea's estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, btw) against a wide range of (non-Western) countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.
The fact that China is pursuing its claims very aggressively makes this whole thing even worse (And, yes, other countries may do similar things, and it is bad too, but it doesn't justify China's move here.)
On 21 June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/317669
> Archived link > > On 21 June 2024, China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law. > > The guidelines threaten to impose a maximum potential death penalty for a range of vaguely defined supporting ‘Taiwan independence’ activities. They allow Chinese courts to conduct trials in absentia and appear to apply to both Taiwanese nationals and foreigners alike, in an unacceptable escalation in Beijing’s assault on the freedom of expression of the people of Taiwan and the international community. > > Michael Caster, Asia Digital Program Manager at ARTICLE 19, commented: > >“In these new guidelines, Beijing is seeking to wield the maximum threat of in absentia death sentences to instill fear and gag independent expression on all things Taiwan. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with preserving cross-straits peace, as Beijing would have it. This development serves to further bully the international community into isolating Taiwan. The only acceptable response is to redouble solidarity and accelerate coordination and cooperation with Taiwan.
On 21 June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/317669
> Archived link > > On 21 June 2024, China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law. > > The guidelines threaten to impose a maximum potential death penalty for a range of vaguely defined supporting ‘Taiwan independence’ activities. They allow Chinese courts to conduct trials in absentia and appear to apply to both Taiwanese nationals and foreigners alike, in an unacceptable escalation in Beijing’s assault on the freedom of expression of the people of Taiwan and the international community. > > Michael Caster, Asia Digital Program Manager at ARTICLE 19, commented: > >“In these new guidelines, Beijing is seeking to wield the maximum threat of in absentia death sentences to instill fear and gag independent expression on all things Taiwan. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with preserving cross-straits peace, as Beijing would have it. This development serves to further bully the international community into isolating Taiwan. The only acceptable response is to redouble solidarity and accelerate coordination and cooperation with Taiwan.
On 21 June 2024, the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law.
On 21 June 2024, China issued alarming new guiding opinions under the 2005 Anti-Secession Law.
The guidelines threaten to impose a maximum potential death penalty for a range of vaguely defined supporting ‘Taiwan independence’ activities. They allow Chinese courts to conduct trials in absentia and appear to apply to both Taiwanese nationals and foreigners alike, in an unacceptable escalation in Beijing’s assault on the freedom of expression of the people of Taiwan and the international community.
Michael Caster, Asia Digital Program Manager at ARTICLE 19, commented: >“In these new guidelines, Beijing is seeking to wield the maximum threat of in absentia death sentences to instill fear and gag independent expression on all things Taiwan. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with preserving cross-straits peace, as Beijing would have it. This development serves to further bully the international community into isolating Taiwan. The only acceptable response is to redouble solidarity and accelerate coordination and cooperation with Taiwan.
We analysed the new technical framework for the European Digital Identity Wallet, revealing severe shortcomings that threaten user privacy and contradict the regulation's intent.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/317047
> in February 2024, the EU Parliament adopted the eIDAS regulation, creating the framework for a "European Digital Identity Wallet". This digital Wallet will enable citizens to identify themselves in a legally binding manner, both online and offline, sign documents, login into websites and share personal data about them with others. Recently, the European Commission published the Architectural Reference Framework (ARF) 1.4 for the technical implementation of the Wallet. > > The success of the EU Digital Identity Wallet depends on its ability to gain citizens' trust and establish a resilient infrastructure in our current data-driven economy. > > "However, after our analysis, we believe that this goal has been missed," says the digital rights group Epicenter Works. > > "We see severe shortcomings in the ARF that either contradict the regulation or ignore important elements of it. These issues, if left unaddressed, could significantly undermine user rights and privacy."
We analysed the new technical framework for the European Digital Identity Wallet, revealing severe shortcomings that threaten user privacy and contradict the regulation's intent.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/317047
> in February 2024, the EU Parliament adopted the eIDAS regulation, creating the framework for a "European Digital Identity Wallet". This digital Wallet will enable citizens to identify themselves in a legally binding manner, both online and offline, sign documents, login into websites and share personal data about them with others. Recently, the European Commission published the Architectural Reference Framework (ARF) 1.4 for the technical implementation of the Wallet. > > The success of the EU Digital Identity Wallet depends on its ability to gain citizens' trust and establish a resilient infrastructure in our current data-driven economy. > > "However, after our analysis, we believe that this goal has been missed," says the digital rights group Epicenter Works. > > "We see severe shortcomings in the ARF that either contradict the regulation or ignore important elements of it. These issues, if left unaddressed, could significantly undermine user rights and privacy."
We analysed the new technical framework for the European Digital Identity Wallet, revealing severe shortcomings that threaten user privacy and contradict the regulation's intent.
in February 2024, the EU Parliament adopted the eIDAS regulation, creating the framework for a "European Digital Identity Wallet". This digital Wallet will enable citizens to identify themselves in a legally binding manner, both online and offline, sign documents, login into websites and share personal data about them with others. Recently, the European Commission published the Architectural Reference Framework (ARF) 1.4 for the technical implementation of the Wallet.
The success of the EU Digital Identity Wallet depends on its ability to gain citizens' trust and establish a resilient infrastructure in our current data-driven economy.
"However, after our analysis, we believe that this goal has been missed," says the digital rights group Epicenter Works.
"We see severe shortcomings in the ARF that either contradict the regulation or ignore important elements of it. These issues, if left unaddressed, could significantly undermine user rights and privacy."
That's right. Done.
Yes, I fully agreed. Usually I don't post the SCMP as it is Chinese state-controlled media. I did it in that case (and in another post in this community) as it provides a glimpse into Chinese propaganda planning. This is why I posted it here, but please let me know if you think I am mistaken.
I don't like the source either, and usually I never link to SCMP or other Chinese propaganda media. In that case, however, I made an excemption (maybe it wasn't a good idea, just let me know that) as the article doesn't promote China's official agenda. The article is highly critical of the Chinese health system, even citing ordinary citizens' posts, and it comes from a paper like SCMP.
Assange appeared in a district court in Saipan on June 26, where he pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching the U.S. Espionage Act by leaking classified documents.
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is free after a 14-year battle against extradition to the United States. In a final effort to secure his freedom, an anonymous Bitcoiner donated over 8 Bitcoin, worth around $500,000, to help Assange’s family pay off the debt incurred by his travel and settlement expenses. [...] The donation link was posted by Stella Assange on June 25, and within 10 hours, an anonymous Bitcoiner paid over 8 Bitcoin (BTC) to the fund, almost clearing the goal of $520,000. He has also received over 300,000 British pounds ($380,000) in fiat donations so far.
The single Bitcoin donation was the largest donation to the fund, more than all other donations in all currencies combined. As a result, Assange will arrive in Australia debt free.
A hospital patient in China who sat down to receive intravenous treatment and was hit with a fee for the chair he used has sparked controversy.
Addition for clarification: The "South China Morning Post"(SCMP) is a state-controlled Chinese media outlet. In this article, however, it criticizes the Chinese health care system and even cites ordinary citizens' posts which don't appear to be censored, a rare move in China. This is why the article is linked here. In general, however, one should be very careful using this source.
A hospital in China has stoked controversy by charging a patient for the use of a chair they were sitting on while receiving an intravenous infusion.
On mainland social media at the end of June, a person released a billing statement by the public-funded Ningxia Children’s Hospital, which showed that five yuan (70 US cents) had been charged for a seat, Zonglan Video reported.
It is not clear how old the patient was, or what they were being treated for, but the bill showed the medication contained antibiotics.
An official at the hospital in Yinchuan in Ningxia Hui autonomous region, northwestern China, said the fee was for two days’ use of a chair by the patient who was sitting on it while receiving an infusion. [...] The controversial chair fee has become the subject of heated discussions on mainland social media, after being viewed 5 million times on Douyin alone.
“Hospitals are so commercial. I feel speechless about this fee,” one online observer said.
“It’s the first time I’ve heard of this kind of cost in a hospital. Is there anything left that they do not charge fees for?” said another person.
“Are ordinary people now expected to bring their own chair to see doctors from now on,” a third said.
Don't know of Moon claims, but it's any dictator's playbook. It's worth reporting on things like that to remind us what's going on.
@Viking_Hippie First your are claiming that Chinese cars aren't manufactured in Xinjiang. When I provide evidence that this is false, you say "even so" and repeat your opinion. It seems whatever one says, no matter if evidence proofs otherwise, you "know" it better, continuing with your false narrative and spreading your opinion. Some may find such conversations funny, I say it is waste of time.
Your points in your statement above are false again.
Chinese cars aren’t even made in Xinjiang.
First, your statement is outright false, one example being the plant operated until recently by a subsidiary of SAIC-Volkswagen near Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang Region. Volkswagen had to leave the joint venture with SAIC exactly over forced labour allegations.
And second, even if true it wouldn't matter as forced labour in China doesn't just take place in Xinjiang alone. There are many other examples across the country.
[Edit typo.]
What a rubbish! It's awful that the enslaved Chinese workers in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China actually are bearing the burdens of Chinese cheap cars.
The 'cyberspace' is designed to be decentralized, exactly the opposite of what you describe. China is trying to 'lead the way' into an Orwellian dystopia, and that's among the least things we need.
They must earn their 50 cents ...
Ah, sorry. I read again some news and the community seems indeed aiming at a different direction. Do you want me to delete this?
Sorry, it's corrected now (and thanks@DocMcStuffin)