The problem is that open-source projects funded by the taxpayer bring nothing long term to create companies that can compete or generate economic growth or develop future industries. They would be much better off creating a more business friendly environment and supporting private businesses through grants, procurements, etc the way the US are good at.
This comment misses the point and argues against something unrelated. It's fundamentally a data sovereignty and security move, not a commercial one.
It's neither pro or anti business. This or "creating a more business friendly environment" policies is a false dichotomy. That could be done too via other means. It is unrelated. Speaking about this "business friendly" only is either misdirection or myopic.
You seem to be arguing for the sake of argument while avoiding the substance of my point by discarding it as "unrelated" while it is fundamentally on point.
If the aim is indeed sovereignty, data and software (and this is software not data), and in general, then they need an effective and comprehensive plan. I think taxpayer-funded state-developed open-source software brings very little at a high cost and can even be counter-productive. Frankly I think it is apolitical move internal to the French state to keep the gavy train coming to government agencies.
Rather I think the US, and also China that does it even more, are much more effective at this by throwing money at the marketplace to develop a whole ecosystem competitively that can also compete globally. An important thing to note here is that EU rules prevent a lot of state action (for instance they would not be allowed to buy only French cars or do things seen as direct subsidies, etc)
France will continue to fall further behind unless it really gets it act together, which is unlikely TBH.
I quite agree with this, and it goes further than the decision against X with now also the prelimenary decision against Tiktok [1]:
> Today, the European Commission preliminarily found TikTok in breach of the Digital Services Act for its addictive design. This includes features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and its highly personalised recommender system.
Very fuzzy stuff, but luckily:
> TikTok now has the possibility to exercise its right to defence
So it does indeed sound like "we have decided that you are guilty but we'll give you a chance to explain yourself (good luck with that)", or perhaps "any last words?"
"Today, the European Commission preliminarily found TikTok in breach of the Digital Services Act for its addictive design. This includes features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and its highly personalised recommender system."
IMHO it is a very slippery slope to start judging "addictive design" as an offence, especially over such trivial features...
And let big tech keep researching and using hostile psychological patterns in their services? Nobody wants overregulation and over control, but there's gotta be a line somewhere, and when corporations are deliberately exploiting addiction for profits (including with children), we're way past the line in my book
It's not a warrant, it is a summon for interview. That's actually very different: the way you phrased it suggests that there is a warrant for his arrest (mandat d'arrêt)...
They are more popular than ever, actually. Pretty much all those fancy cups and bottles (like Stanley, other brands available) sold to keep your coffee hot/drink cold on the go are vaccum ones. It's just updated and more robust design compared to the older thermos flasks.
I don't know if there is the concept of charity organisation in Germany but I feel this is the sort of thing that ought to be limited to registered charities not to be abused/get out of hand.
Those numbers are maximum fines per violation if I understand the wording correctly ("not more than") while the suggestion was that €5,000 should be a minimum.
Deletion requests are a bit fuzzy. Withdrawing consent is easy, some deletions are easy but we need to remember that the GDPR have a carve out "for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims."
In practice this means that companies will keep data, and are entitled to keep data, for the period a legal claim may be made. For instance in the UK that period is 6 years and so you will find that companies will keep data for 6-7 years.
> the council’s leaders said it was aiming to reduce its overall spending by £162 million by the end of the decade, including a £38 million reduction for facilities and labs.
Especially maddening considering how small the target savings are in the grand scheme of government spending...
reply