“ In no-cloud mode the only way to interact with the devices is through their app, and an app isn’t always the most convenient way to interact with devices in the home.”
Note that it is "the only way to interact remotely". That is, no cloud mode disables interaction with e.g. Home Assistant but not interaction with the buttons.
While some people are talking about whether this is a good or bad regulation, the reality is we've moved to another game entirely : whether or not Apple has to follow the law.
No matter what you think about the regulation, it's obvious Apple cannot in any way be allowed to win that one now.
At least in the common charger case it was an industry agreement not a law and they did it when the regulation came, this time it's much more serious.
meh. if it's about shipping broken e2e or reporting vulnerable minorities or the usual, then they would be obliged to break it and/or exit the given market.
yes, I (also) think the EU pro-consumer regulations are good and Apple ought to adhere to them simply because it's the virtuous behavior, but ... they have show time after time that they prefer (virtually amoral) profit maximization.
But the answer is: pay or consent "does not achieve the objective of preventing the accumulation of personal data by gatekeepers". See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... (also linked via the tweet elsewhere in this discussion)
Shows how NON compliant Alphabet was before DMA ;)
"Make infra compliant, but try to pull some shit with billing, to see how serious the EC is about DMA. That way, if they're serious, we're ready, but if not, we can still make money."
If there is a shit show, it is ESXi. I know plenty who've migrated pain free to Proxmox. Back-up works great too. All for free.
VMware has a ton of stuff that others are nowhere near, although those offerings are useful for a minority who, as you say, will have to bite the bullet.
Can't individuals (on their local systems) just blacklist those root CAs independently of the browsers? I can do that today to trust and distrust any certificate out there. Problem solved right?
> Can't individuals (on their local systems) just blacklist those root CAs independently of the browsers?
The problem (for me at least) is deciding which of the 200-odd roots I want to distrust. If a root has a name that I can't decipher because it's in foreign, that's easy. But most roots have cryptic names, and there's no standard way of finding out who operates a given root, who audits it, or who that root is allowed to issue certs for.
Perhaps there's a market for an open-source root-store editor, that annotates each root with a plain-language description, including stuff like how many certs it has issued, and how many frauds and cock-ups it's been responsible for.
Most people never change defaults, this is for mass surveillance and repression. Its not about some specific activists, for those they hire foreign private security firms and they are using 0-days anyway.
"Deliberately blind" implies the use of encryption (by a platform or provider).
One solution I think is to provide a user side toggle or option to enable encryption. Then it is not deliberate from the provider's perspective, but a user choice/preference. And it is not unreasonable for the user to expect privacy (encryption), ergo this choice defaults to encrypted.
At worst the provider is intentionally blinded by the user, and not deliberately blind.
But do we move the argument back to whether including (the choice of) encryption to mean deliberately blind?
I think that is putting an awful lot of faith in a few legal hypotheticals. If this draconian bill passes, companies mitigate the damage this way, and things shake out that way in the courts, then great. I just think before the bill even passes, it's much better to focus on nipping it in the bud. The reason we have the first amendment is because by the time government is trying to police speech based on its results, things have gone horribly wrong and it's better to make them to address those root causes rather than go even further down the rabbit hole of authoritarianism.
