EU Governments, Lawmakers Agree on Tougher Cybersecurity Rules for Key Sectors (reuters.com) 14
EU countries and lawmakers agreed on Friday to tougher cybersecurity rules for large energy, transport and financial firms, digital providers and medical device makers amid concerns about cyber attacks by state actors and other malicious players. From a report: The European Commission two years ago proposed rules on the cybersecurity of network and information systems called NIS 2 Directive, in effect expanding the scope of the current rule known as NIS Directive.
The new rules cover all medium and large companies in essential sectors - energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructure, health, vaccines and medical devices, drinking water, waste water, digital infrastructure, public administration and space. All medium and large firms in postal and courier services, waste management, chemicals, food manufacturing, medical devices, computers and electronics, machinery equipment, motor vehicles, and digital providers such as online market places, online search engines, and social networking service platforms will also fall under the rules.
The new rules cover all medium and large companies in essential sectors - energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructure, health, vaccines and medical devices, drinking water, waste water, digital infrastructure, public administration and space. All medium and large firms in postal and courier services, waste management, chemicals, food manufacturing, medical devices, computers and electronics, machinery equipment, motor vehicles, and digital providers such as online market places, online search engines, and social networking service platforms will also fall under the rules.
medical devices motor vehicles = no 3rd party repa (Score:2)
medical devices motor vehicles = no 3rd party repair
Re: (Score:2)
safety has its price AND profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? This is Slashdot, they don't do that here. Hell, most people don't read the summary, much less the article, and you want them to read a linked technical report?!
I admire your never-give-up spirit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't clear to you from the context, I was posting in response to "no 3rd party repair" and not to the original article.
I suppose if I wanted to respond to TFA I'd start a post at the top instead of replying to another poster.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's just me - in context, it looks like you're justifying the elimination of the "Right to Repair" (perhaps with your tongue solidly planted in your cheek?)
Re: (Score:2)
The post was the cynic in my coming out, not that I'm personally for or against anything. Pragmatically speaking I doubt "right to repair" will gain much traction. It's still not widely recognized as a right and is more of a theoretical privileged granted by the legislature. I think the concept runs contrary to business interest, national security, and desires of law enforcement, and therefor can't realistically survive.
It's one thing to legislate consumer protection when you only hurt businesses in the sho
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, network infrastructure safety will require an up-front investment which will repay the network's owner many times over. To do otherwise would be "Penny-wise, Pound-foolish".
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I think it's a scam to line pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no 3rd party repair for the streetlight in your street. Which has about as much to do with this as what you're talking about.
Mordac, the Preventer of Information Services (Score:2)