186
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
186 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
49566 readers
387 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
'Fun' fact: the US company (Kyndryl) blocked from taking over the Dutch digital identity provider (for about 100 million euro) because it was deemed a security risk, still has Defence contracts with the Netherlands in excess of 2 billion euro (project GrIT).
Schoof's cabinet knew the risks and didn't act. And Schoof himself was Director-General of AIVD (the national intelligence service) before becoming PM โ so of all recent PMs, he's the one who should've read this file correctly. He didn't.
The Tweede Kamer (parliament) actually passed a motion against the contract extension. The cabinet overrode it. Then Jetten's cabinet did the same thing again in May 2026.
It took one person with the right knowledge in the right seat to stop it โ Staatssecretaris Aerdts, who literally has a PhD on oversight of the Dutch intelligence services.
But here's the part that should make you angry: Van Oordt flagged this exact risk first. He got fired for it. The analysis that cost him his job is the same analysis Aerdts used to block the acquisition. He was just right too early, and from the wrong chair.
And he's still being punished. Still in legal proceedings, still without the apology or reinstatement he's owed.
So apparently the Dutch government's policy is: do your job right as a CPO, get fired and dragged through court for it โ and wait for someone with a minister's title to be proven right on your behalf.
The reason it is deemed a security risk, is because the USA government can demand any data from any American company. Hence the USA would be able to demand some of the most personal data of all Dutch citizens.
I am unaware of the defence contract, but there is a good chance that this same risk is not a factor there. For example: hosting NATO data, or providing software solutions can both be done without this risk being a factor.
I'm not saying that the defence contracts are smart or devoid of corruption. Just that the risk that was introduced here may not be a factor.