Disclaimer: I’m neither from the EU nor USA. I’m commenting on this as a random observer.
Europe is so far behind the US in digital infrastructure it has “lost the internet”, a top European cyber enforcer has warned. // […] it was “currently impossible” to store data fully in Europe […] // “We’ve lost the whole cloud. We have lost the internet, let’s be honest,” De Bruycker said. “If I want my information 100 per cent in the EU . . . keep on dreaming,” he added. “You’re setting an objective that is not realistic.”
There’s an implicit nirvana fallacy there: that you either need to keep the data 100% within the EU, or it’s pointless to even try (“we’ve lost”). That’s far from true; the more of your data is kept locally, the safer you are against rogue states (like China, USA, or Russia). A small victory might not be enough, but it’s certainly not a loss.
Also note “currently impossible” does not mean “impossible forever”.
The Belgian official warned that Europe’s cyber defences depended on the co-operation of private companies, most of which are American. “In cyber space, everything is commercial. Everything is privately owned,” he said.
I genuinely do not see why this couldn’t change; in other words, why EU-based cybersec organisations could not be founded and funded by the local governments.
But Europe was missing out on crucial new technologies, which are being spearheaded in the US and elsewhere, he said. These include cloud computing and artificial intelligence — both vital for defending European countries against cyber attacks.
This argument is so shitty that I’m now wondering if Bruycker has vested interests. (Or alternatively, that the article is butchering what Bruycker said so bad that it’s putting words in his mouth. I don’t know.)
I’d really, really like to see him exploring 1) why those two things are vital, and 2) why the EU countries could not develop them at home.
Europe needed to build its own capabilities to strengthen innovation and security, said De Bruycker, adding that legislation such as the EU’s AI Act, which regulates the development of the fast-developing technology, was “blocking” innovation.
He suggested that EU governments should support private initiatives to build scale in areas such as cloud computing or digital identification technologies.
In the case there’s some vested interest going on, this is the first place to look for it. Does this guy have any connection with the American mafia?
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the US hyperscalers were crucial in helping salvage data from Russian attacks, he said.
That sounds a lot like whataboutism, plus trying to put a rogue state (USA) in a more favourable light because of its fights against another rogue state (the Russian Federation). A plague in both houses.
I really have to wonder where all this doomsaying is coming from. Best case, as you already mentioned, serving some self-interest, worst case someone else’s. There is so much conflation here - AI and internet, infrastructure and services, research and commercial development. And everything is downplayed to make the EU look bad.
The EU is right there at the forefront of AI research for example. Just because some megacorp can sell slop at a loss, this doesn’t mean we have ‘lost the race’ or anything, wth are they even talking about.
You see stuff like this constantly and it’s almost always corpo leeches trying to get state money, people sucking up to or being controlled by a superpower of choice, or someone who has no idea what they are even talking about.
One final example: The German Telekom is the largest telco/internet provider by revenue in the fucking world, and competitive in the US. (Only by revenue tho.)
I mean, this unit is Belgian. Here in the Netherlands our southern neighbors are (lovingly) said to be… uh, well… how do I say it? Slightly less wrinklybrained. :p
Jokes aside: This assessment is probably realistic at this very moment; we still very much rely on the USAians for many cloud and AI services. EU is making quite an effort to localize though. Fairly certain the reliance will much decrease. At the same time, it is not realistic to assume we will be able to match the level of technological advancement overseas. Honestly, one might wonder if this is required.
Fairly certain we will be just fine in the long run.
I think UnfortunateShort phrased it well; what’s bugging me is not the present assessment, but the “doomsaying”.
Fairly certain we will be just fine in the long run.
I do think so, too. I’m way more worried about Latin America in this regard, because 1) it’s my turf, and 2) we’ve been consistently backwards, and local governments love to play along the three stooges, the only difference is which one.
Disclaimer: I’m neither from the EU nor USA. I’m commenting on this as a random observer.
There’s an implicit nirvana fallacy there: that you either need to keep the data 100% within the EU, or it’s pointless to even try (“we’ve lost”). That’s far from true; the more of your data is kept locally, the safer you are against rogue states (like China, USA, or Russia). A small victory might not be enough, but it’s certainly not a loss.
Also note “currently impossible” does not mean “impossible forever”.
I genuinely do not see why this couldn’t change; in other words, why EU-based cybersec organisations could not be founded and funded by the local governments.
This argument is so shitty that I’m now wondering if Bruycker has vested interests. (Or alternatively, that the article is butchering what Bruycker said so bad that it’s putting words in his mouth. I don’t know.)
I’d really, really like to see him exploring 1) why those two things are vital, and 2) why the EU countries could not develop them at home.
In the case there’s some vested interest going on, this is the first place to look for it. Does this guy have any connection with the American mafia?
That sounds a lot like whataboutism, plus trying to put a rogue state (USA) in a more favourable light because of its fights against another rogue state (the Russian Federation). A plague in both houses.
I really have to wonder where all this doomsaying is coming from. Best case, as you already mentioned, serving some self-interest, worst case someone else’s. There is so much conflation here - AI and internet, infrastructure and services, research and commercial development. And everything is downplayed to make the EU look bad.
The EU is right there at the forefront of AI research for example. Just because some megacorp can sell slop at a loss, this doesn’t mean we have ‘lost the race’ or anything, wth are they even talking about.
You see stuff like this constantly and it’s almost always corpo leeches trying to get state money, people sucking up to or being controlled by a superpower of choice, or someone who has no idea what they are even talking about.
One final example: The German Telekom is the largest telco/internet provider by revenue in the fucking world, and competitive in the US. (Only by revenue tho.)
I mean, this unit is Belgian. Here in the Netherlands our southern neighbors are (lovingly) said to be… uh, well… how do I say it? Slightly less wrinklybrained. :p
Jokes aside: This assessment is probably realistic at this very moment; we still very much rely on the USAians for many cloud and AI services. EU is making quite an effort to localize though. Fairly certain the reliance will much decrease. At the same time, it is not realistic to assume we will be able to match the level of technological advancement overseas. Honestly, one might wonder if this is required.
Fairly certain we will be just fine in the long run.
I think UnfortunateShort phrased it well; what’s bugging me is not the present assessment, but the “doomsaying”.
I do think so, too. I’m way more worried about Latin America in this regard, because 1) it’s my turf, and 2) we’ve been consistently backwards, and local governments love to play along the three stooges, the only difference is which one.