Switzerland would be useless if it can't remain a safe haven.
https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/a-dangero...
It was also Swedish EU commissioner who wants to ban end-to-end encrypted chats and brought various proposals to the EU for this.
The UK, US, Australia, and other capitalist flagships are all trying to do the same. Not to mention the Patriot Act.
I’d rather word that differently. High-trust societies with little expectation of privacy and valuing community tend to do well with social democracy. Otherwise people end up abusing the system and it’s hard to catch them if privacy trumps community needs.
Here in ex-USSR country people are very pro privacy and individualist. At the same time we try to copy a lot of Nordic stuff from our neighbors. It’s a shitshow how those cultures mesh. A lot of welfare abuse, hiding beyond muh privacy to avoid scrutinity.
Generally, this is because Swedes trust the state.
The population may trust the government now, but totalitarian regimes are returning to fashion and love when they can skip the data collecting bureaucracy and go straight into building or offshoring their gulags.
They can go anywhere in Europe, since that type of surveillance seems to be illegal
You can also read about the reaction to the verdict in 2017 (again in Danish): https://www.version2.dk/artikel/bombe-under-ti-aars-dansk-te... where the EU deems the Danish logging unlawful, and the police and the government reacts by ignoring the verdict and wanting even more logging. There is a bunch of followup and related links at the bottom. The site is a tech news site owned by the Danish Engineers Union.
There's a Wikipedia page on what is being logged and retained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention#Denmark
It's somewhere between an over-interpretation of EU rules and a misunderstand of the usefulness of the collected data, but the end result is that every single person in Denmark is basically logged and tracked 24/7, unless they go completely offline.
Take Belgium, which took the "mass surveillance by default is illegal" and introduced a law that forced mass surveillance in areas that exceeded a certain legal threshold, designed specifically to include every single town in Belgium except for some tiny town where almost nobody lives.
Other European countries have applied similar workarounds. They're all pretty much dead the moment they hit the courts, but as long as the public doesn't know and nobody bothers to start a lawsuit, the mass surveillance continues.
"Data retention", as the industry calls it, is still active far and wide across Europe. Some countries retain said data for days at most, others for years.
by transporting every cargo to USA for thorough inspection before flight.
The problem would be all the debris up there. Maybe destroying one satellite would destroy them all.
Probably not for Starlink. You’ve got mass-manufactured satellites in a constellation launched on a reüsable, profitable platform on one hand. And on the other hand you have experimental expendable ASAT weapons.
The anti-satellite side has a budget hundreds to thousands of times cheaper, based on average ball bearings to satellite density in orbit, with a decent spread and multiple orbit intersections per day.
Approximately as much as a finished satellite or block or gold of similar mass. The bulk of the cost is in launch and aiming.
There are 40,000 SUVs randomly located on the planet.
You fire randomly in the horizontal plane.
What's the probability of you hitting an SUV, and not yourself in the back 84 minutes later?
The earth is big. The probability isn't zero, but for any given orbits period it is low. And both the ball bearings and the satelites will re-enter after a while.
Why randomly, if you're aiming for objects in an known orbit?
> with a decent spread and multiple orbit intersections per day.
If you miss one — and you probably will without active guidance, imagine aiming said gun at an SUV seven time zones away — everything's in a different place by your next close approach. Your ball bearings and the target both, thanks to chaotic pertubations, boosts, drag, etc.
Most hosting companies doesn't even really want colocation anymore, it's sort a niche product.
There are some places that have jellybean colocation offers (e.g. Hetzner does - notice their normal business is jellybean servers and they run their own data centers, so it looks like a no-brainer to fit colocation into that business model), but it only covers a small portion of colocation possibilities.
But typically colocation is just one of those products where every deal is fully custom. That's just how it is. So you have to buy enough of the product to make it worth the salesman's and engineer's time, meaning at least a couple hundred dollars a month worth.
By the way, the same is true for business internet access. If you pay the cheapest price for internet (as every residential user does), you get the same basic service as everyone else. But if you're willing to spedn enough money, your ISP will negotiate with you. Though I hear it sometimes takes some prodding to get past the "residential area == ordinary residential connection" assumption (and in many cases their network may not support certain upgrades). And it's true for business transactions in general. You want five screws, grab the best match off the shelf. You want five million screws, we'll make them to your exact specifications boss. (Also related: If you owe the bank a hundred billion dollars, the bank has a problem.)
Of the ~10 parties with a chance of a seat at the parlament, absolutely none have any clue what so ever when it comes to IT security matters.
The major parties have multiple times attemted to push egregious laws like collecting all internet metadata in our country, and storing it for years. They argued it wouldn't be a risk because only authorized personel would have access...
Sheer luck has twarted those attempts.
It seems more crazy to believe that two, three or four parties can represent 80 million or more people. The truth is that many of the parties in countries like Norway and Denmark are all fairly similar. They mostly agree on the basics. Six of the twelve parties in Denmark are, in my mind, variations on Social Democrats. I'm sure many would disagree, but they vary on issues, that in countries like the US, would be considered implementation details or narrow topics.
E.g. there are currently 14 political parties with at least one seat in the UK Parliament - but most of them only have a very small number of seats.
Claiming that 100,000,000+ are aligned to a party platform is much more crazy.
Any party is much less likely to have a dominance, and they'd have to play along with the others to form a coalition.
I'd argue that this is much more what a democracy should be like and much more representative of the wide range of people and voices that our countries (Norway, Netherlands, etc) have compared to the "divide-in-the-middle" politics that are common to the US.
What Mullvad apparently don't have are data-plane logs. But then, surveillance laws mandate forceful & secret compliance in certain cases (Mullvad may be exempt but who knows: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43018290)
It looks like Prince Hans-Adams is much more able to protect peoples civil liberties than Australias westminster system.
To quote wikipedia: "Liechtenstein is a semi-constitutional monarchy".
It is probably as close as you get though in modern europe.