Is it true or more of a myth? Based on my online read, Europe has "think of the children" narrative as common if not more than other parts of the world. They tried hard to ban encryption in apps many times.[1]
Democratic governance is complicated. It’s never black and white and it’s perfectly possible for parts of the EU to be working to end encryption while another part works toward enhancing citizen privacy rights. Often they’re not even supported by the same politicians, but since it’s not a winners takes all sort of thing, it can all happen simultaneously and sometimes they can even come up with some “interesting” proposals that directly interfere with each other.
That being said there is a difference between the US and the EU in regards to how these things are approached. Where the US is more likely to let private companies destroy privacy while keeping public agencies leashed it’s the opposite in Europe. Truth be told, it’s not like the US initiatives are really working since agencies like the NSA seem to blatantly ignore all laws anyway, which cause some scandals here in Europe as well. In Denmark our Secret Police isn’t allowed to spy on us without warrants, but our changing governments has had different secret agreements with the US to let the US monitor our internet traffic. Which is sort of how it is, and the scandal isn’t so much that, it’s how our Secret Police is allowed to get information about Danish citizens from the NSA without warrants, letting our secret police spy on us by getting the data they aren’t allowed to gather themselves from the NSA who are allowed to gather it.
Anyway, it’s a complicated mess, and you have so many branches of the bureaucracy and so many NGOs pulling in different directions that you can’t say that the EU is pro or anti privacy the way you want to. Because it’s both of those things and many more at the same time.
I think the only thing the EU unanimously agrees on (sort of) is to limit private companies access to citizen privacy data. Especially non-EU organisations. Which is very hard to enforce because most of the used platforms and even software isn’t European.
I am fine with private company using my data for showing me better ads. They can't affect my life significantly.
I am not fine with government using the data to police me. Already in most countries, governments are putting people in jail because of things like hate speech where are the laws are really vague.
To me this sounds like an opinion that would be common in the US, mostly because of where the trust and fears seem to be (private companies versus government).
I think everybody (private companies, government, individuals) will try to influence and will affect your personal life. What I am worried about is who has the most efficient way to influence a lot the average person - because that entity can control on long term a lot more.
My impression is that in the European Union - due partially to a complex system - is harder for any particular actor to do much on its own (even the example with Denmark secret service asking NSA for data about citizens - I guess it is harder for them to do that rather than just get directly the data).
So what I am afraid is focused and efficient entities having the data, hence I am more afraid of private companies (which are focused and sometimes efficient) rather than governments.
Can we please argue on the thing being discussed rather than where it is common?
Are you saying influencing life through ads and putting me in jail have similar effect on me? If you combine all laws of my country I am pretty sure I would have broken few unintentionally. If government wants to just put me in jail they could retroactively find any of my past instance if they have the data. This is not some theoretical thing, but something the thing that happens with political dissidents all the time.
The "thing being discussed" is the efficacy of privacy laws. They work well, and the fact that you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet is tacit evidence.
In the real world, both corporations and governments are your enemy. You're mistakenly looking at it as a relativist comparison; the people influencing your life through advertising work with the people who put you in jail. They aggregate and sell data to Palantir which is used by dozens of well-meaning intelligence agencies to scrutinize their citizens. They threaten Apple and Google unless they turn over personally-identifying data and account details. Some of them even demand that corporate data is stored on state-owned servers.
So, what you actually want is to use the power of the "putting me in jail" people against your oppressors. If the law says that companies can't collect data unconditionally, then neither the corporation or the state can justly implicate you.
But everything is relativist. There is and can't be any absolute privacy. We need to find the biggest gain we can have in privacy with minimal impact to economy. And making laws for online ads is the worst in terms of ROI. It impacts economy and millions of people could work because of ads and it offers very low benefit.
> you haven't been put on trial for your 'crimes' yet
I know someone who has been put to trial.
> They aggregate and sell data to Palantir
See here we are going to speculative domain. If there are companies who I trust not to do that, it would be big tech not because they are good, but because they know the value of data and are the ones which can extract highest value. And in any case it would require breaking TOS as companies list out their partners. And if we are entering illegal, anyways laws won't help with this.
See this[1]. Most sampled countries have laws against hate speech. Certainly most of the ones western world care about. Also see [2] for examples of arrest.
Not Europe, just Von der Leyen and the like. Germany put her down multiple times on this bullshit now because it violates our constitution. But she tries again and again and again.
[1]: https://proton.me/blog/eu-council-encryption-vote-delayed