Dutch government says no to backdoors, grants $540k to OpenSSL

What if one day, it becomes illegal to be gay? Or have sex with someone out of wedlock?

Then all this data could be used against someone.

Is it popularity or damage/$ that determines what is more dangerous?

Blatant negligence and human factors seems to me to be what to expect, rather than rare exceptions. — Well, not for nuclear plants. But for the power grid for example, and trains and cars and the water pipe system perhaps.

"At this time, there is no outlook on the general possibility to, for example via standards, weaken encryption products without compromising the security of digital systems relying on encryption. By for example introducing a technical point of access into a encryption product which would enable intelligences agencies to view encrypted files, digital systems could be rendered vulnerable to for example criminals, terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies. This would have negative consequences for the security of communicated or saved information, and the integrity of ICT-systems, which are increasingly of importance in the functioning of society." (second paragraph of 'Afweging en conclusie')

(in these debates, there is always an important question: what would Ivo have said? Luckily, somebody has already provided an answer: http://tinyurl.com/whatwouldivohavesaid)

Devil's advocate: he never said the parties in question were douches because they disagree with the privacy policy (although in this context it's certainly reasonable to assume it was implied). There's plenty of valid reasons to call the members of the PVV a bunch of douchebags, for example; especially the part where it's a populist party that thrives on insulting everyone else.

Bijna alle kamerstukken zijn als pdf terug te vinden. Zo te zien worden de recente eerst als doc gepubliceerd.

Apparently new documents can be posted as DOCX only (strange).

You are right to point out the open standard guidelines, but unfortunately, they are marked as comply or explain. This means that they are not mandatory if you have a valid reason not to be able to comply with them. In this case, the reason is probably "our civil servants are used to Microsoft's defaults", which is — as much as I disagree with this policy — probably enough to get away it.

Also, one very bothersome side effect of government-sanctioned hacking is that governments have an incentive not to notify software vendors about vulnerabilities.

Imagine if the police had prior knowledge of a vulnerability in the computer system of a car, but did not act to protect the public. A few years later a criminal figure out the same vulnerability and causes a major car crash on a motorway and murder several people. I would view the police officer to be found liable under breach of duty, same as if they witnessed a crime and refused to act.

Under the same logic, if companies has a legal responsibility to protect their customers and provide safe products, and police officers has a professional responsibility to report crimes, then the police should be forced to act if they have confirmed information about a security vulnerability.

[1] http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/deta...

Do you have a source for this? I never got this impression. Some countries have proportionally large influence due to their size, namely France and Germany. Some others due to the high quality diplomats and politicians they send to Europe, such as Belgium and Italy.

Some countries actively sabotage their own influence in the EU, by showing nothing but hostility and obstruction (UK), or by using the EU as a kind of retirement plan for politicians and diplomats that failed domestically (Netherlands). Always echoing the German point of view should not be seen as "an effective veto", it is essentially an attempt to stay in favor with their formerly close, powerful friend to the east, who has been getting less and less interested over the years, as his attention shifts towards the East.