yeahforsureman

I’m pretty sure they’re covered by the so-called sui generis protection of databases within the EU/EEA at least. That one is about protecting the effort and investment, not originality of expression.

Well, yeah, I’ve turned a knob or two through the years I might’ve easily failed to consider now, as well...

It can make a small difference on this site, though. Testing it with three browsers (Safari, Brave, Firefox Focus) on iOS with Private Browsing on, each gets a different name and hash — then again, those do stick to the browser pretty well after that and are resistant to incognito mode (or session switch by other means), for example, just like you’d expect. On Safari, Private Browsing masks the IP at least, and Brave has its own tricks.

Not to forget the European Human Rights Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), although it's not an institution of the EU but the Council of Europe, spanning all EU states and then some.

The Court's case law is recognized as is by EU, and includes some landmark privacy rulings, e.g., against access to contents and metadata of electronic comms without a court order (or comparable legal safeguards), or any forms of bulk surveillance.

Truly, this is what the Lord's prophets have revealed to us! (Eliezer 11:52) Keep strong in your P(singularity), for when the Kingdom arrives, He shall judge us in His righteous glory, whether to eternal annihilation, or rebirth and life in His Memory Eternal!

No, in the EU, you don't "own" the data about yourself in any meaningful sense. For example, under the GDPR, consent is just one of several potentially available legal bases for processing personal data — in fact, it's the one basis you usually want to avoid as a business if at all possible — which also means that for most uses of your data, you do not have any unqualified right to demand a controller cease processing or remove your personal data.

Weren't we talking about criminal liability, though? And ‘tort’ — in addition to sounding like something you'd rather eat during a kaffepaus with those Nordic buddies of yours — is so common-law(ish) that if asking for trouble were a crime, using it in dialogue with those Nordic lawyers could well be deemed as intentional under most current local varities of criminal law theory up there, perhaps merely because you surely must've considered that consequence "quite probable", at minimum, or due to your indifference toward the same (or some combination of these) ;)

The mismatch between the existing monetary union and the lack of fiscal integration (ie, not even any imaginary authoritarian eurofederalism) indeed is the economic macro issue above everything else, and remains a major unsolved tension even after the acute years of the Eurocrisis. Basically, if you take it as described, we're in a highly suboptimal state with two radically different directions to go to try to fix it. Politically, it's a nightmare, at least in terms of having much hope for sensible public debate and deliberation, let alone giving politicians the potentially necessary wide room of maneuvre.

I wasn't aware of these things back then, but I've been sad to find out it's not like we weren't warned about exactly this way back in the 90s when the crucial first steps were taken. Including by Paul Krugman, of all people!

Of course, it was the 1990s, from "Winds of Change" to Western neoliberalism as the End of History. And the elite belief in integration advancing "one crisis at a time" was well-established by then. Easy to say now, but did they really think public debt crises and bailing out national governments would create better conditions for having a mature discussion about EU-level fiscal transfers and taxation without drawing in the worst of our national stereotypes and trust issues, zero-sum thinking, and widespread beliefs about the Brussels bureaucrats completely detached from the realities of the common man, issuing directives about the correct curvature range of cucumbers while shoveling regional aid funds to smooth-talking Neapolitan gangsters to promote more sustainable EU waste management strategies, or whatever?

You must know that this stuff was later also codified in successive (so-called hard) international human rights treaties like the ICCPR (see Article 17 in this case), right? That Covenant now has 175 parties, plus six more signatories without ratification (most notably China and Cuba) — North Korea is the only state that has tried to withdraw.

In some of those states, the provisions of the Covenant may be considered directly applicable/self-executing, having the legal force of a provision of constitutional rank, while others require some kind of national step or implementation. Whatever the case, it's arguably at the level of incorporation into national law, though, that the ICCPR has exerted its greatest impact. Basically, post-WW2, when anywhere in the world a national constitution has been framed, the ICCPR has served as the natural yardstick for drafting the fundamental rights provisions.

And beyond nation states, I'm glad we're not dependent on UN bodies and agencies for the development and enforcement of human and fundamental rights more globally either. Sure, the European Court of Human Rights doesn't have an army of its own, and part of the influence and relevance of the law it creates is a bit squishy, frankly, hinging on the authority, gravitas and respect bestowed on it by a somewhat opaque and shifting web of institutions and so on. It's certainly not nothing, though, especially since nowadays the ECHR's jurisprudence is mainlined by the ECJ basically uncut, and also applied as constitutional-level law by the rest of the eurocracy basking in the supremacy of Union law.

But I don't know, man, this human rights talk is always a bit of a gamble in terms of using your time well, at least if addressing a crowd where potentially more people support the death penalty than the ICC.

Jesus, what country?

+1 for boring!

Ericsson is Swedish, though.

Not surprised to see "German" quotation marks in this petty complaint...

Just an observation: The different approaches mentioned in the replies to this post seem to all neatly fall into one of the three types of individual response (exit, voice, loyalty) there are to any sort of decline in/of firms and organizations of any kind within Albert O. Hirschman's well-known economic framework, originally laid out in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (1970).

Personally, I find "loyalty" perhaps the most fascinating one of those, being "irrational" for the individual almost by definition but sometimes, for example, proving out to be the only "glue" holding an organization together through a period of incurable-looking decline followed by an eventual recovery (in the lucky cases).

You're still mixing up contributor license agreements with the kind of arrangements where the copyright is actually transferred and assigned "away" from the creator to another copyright holder (generally a copyright assignment agreement). This is far less common than CLAs.

I don't know what you mean by a rugpull exactly, but of course in theory you can grant/obtain very extensive rights under a CLA as well, including eg the permission to relicense your contributions under whatever terms the licensee prefers. CLAs are a great way to centralize the IPR in an open source project for practical purposes like license enforcement, but in case the CLA terms allow it, the central governing entity could also obtain the right to switch the license even to a, say, commercial one. (Such terms would usually be a red flag for contributors though.) And in any case, that kind of CLA wouldn't still close off the code already released under the previous open-source license, and neither would it prevent you from licensing your own contributions under terms of your choice.