1.4K

Following major pushback from over a hundred civil society groups and thousands of petition signees, a pivotal amendment that would protect end-to-end encryption has been embraced by a prominent committee within the European Union’s (EU) Parliament. 

In November 2023, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) amended a controversial regulation proposed in 2022. This regulation, as proposed by the European Commission, would have allowed European Union (EU) authorities to gather encrypted online data and cross-reference it with their databases in the name of preventing crimes against children, notably the spread of pictures depicting child abuse. 

The originally proposed regulation would have allowed for the mass-scanning of private phones and computers, going as far as to authorize the use of AI in checking and scanning private text messages.

While not perfect, the amendment seems to be sufficient to safeguard end-to-end encryption, according to Joe Mullin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). 

“Every human being should have the right to have a private conversation,” Mullin said. “That’s true in the offline world, and we must not give up on those rights in the digital world.” 

The new amendment prohibits client-side scanning, a form of bypassing encryption, and removes age-verification language that would have forced online users to provide identification cards before being granted internet access. Mullin noted, however, that the new language does leave the door open for such regulations in the future. Moreover, the approved amendment could lead to further government scanning of public material online—“less than desirable,” Mullin said, depending on how the process is conducted. In March 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that weakening encryption violates the fundamental human right to privacy. 

As of April 2024, the news of this amendment’s adoption has not been addressed in the corporate press, only by industry organizations, such as the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and by nonprofit groups such as the EFF.

Sources: 

Joe Mullin, “This Month, The EU Parliament Can Take Action To Stop The Attack On Encryption,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 14, 2023.

Christopher Schmon, “European Court of Human Rights Confirms: Weakening Encryption Violates Fundamental Rights,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 5, 2024.

Student Researcher: David Miller (Frostburg State University)

Faculty Evaluator: Andy Duncan (Frostburg State University)

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Remember the good old days? When office corridors buzzed with the sound of ideas bouncing between senior executives and junior recruits? And the kitchens! New products conceived in the time it took for the kettle to boil. Not to mention all that learning. In the past, a new starter only had to sit within five yards of an experienced colleague to absorb the entire contents of their brain.

Such pre-pandemic nostalgia infused the vision laid out this week by Andy Jassy, chief executive of retailer Amazon, who ordered a full-time return to the office. In a memo, he said the move would make it easier for staff to “learn, model, practice”. It would also “strengthen our culture” while making things like brainstorming “simpler and more effective”.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s rose-hued parade. But in ancient times — five years ago — employees would also bitch about silos, poor training and productivity. Remember offices on Fridays? No, me neither. What about off-site meetings because headquarters was too stultifying to produce new ideas? Sadly, yes. 

Of course, coming together in the workplace can spur connections, innovation and learning. My best gossip is usually from serendipitous chats. For some, the commute provides the spring in their step. But let’s not get carried away. The office is not the solution to every single workplace problem.

However, some seem to think it is — even if that view is not backed up by evidence. In her new book, Over Work, Brigid Schulte describes a leadership “echo chamber”. One expert tells her their team “was actually more productive” when working flexibly “not just in terms of hours worked, but literally in output”. They can readily demonstrate this to the CEO, but “can’t get them to listen because instead they’re listening to their fellow CEOs”. Other bosses flex RTO mandates to signal muscular leadership: take Elon Musk, who once described “laptop classes” as “living in la-la-land”.

Who knew something as boring as an office could become the centre of a culture war? But here we are. When UK business minister Jonathan Reynolds said flexible working could enhance productivity and opportunities this week, Kemi Badenoch, candidate to be leader of the opposition Conservative party, condemned his sentiment.

Back and forth we go, distorting statistics, trading insults — shirkers on the one side, dinosaurs on the other. Will it never end?

David D’Souza, director of profession at CIPD, the human resources body, says it is a distraction “from critical conversations about productivity, flexibility, job security, fairness and balance. Organisations should be weighing up the complex factors behind this decision-making on evidence, as opposed to just feelings or what they see [others] doing.” Some human resources chiefs tell him of “pressure from the CEO” to see more physical presence on site “due to personal preference or nostalgia”. 

Yet despite the noise, the reality is leaders are generally pragmatic. Most white-collar employers offer some flexibility over location because it benefits staff and bosses. In the US, 67 per cent did, according to the Flex Index report. In the UK, the CIPD puts it at 83 per cent. A recent study in the Nature journal found that “a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance” and improved staff satisfaction and retention.

Nick Bloom, one of the authors, told me he is sceptical of Jassy’s performance rationale because it goes against “data from many other studies in other companies showing that once you have three days a week in the office that generates about the same productivity as five”. While two extra days boost facetime, mentoring and culture-building, staff do not have quiet time at home for deep work. Counter to the slacker argument, “we know WFH workers tend to skip lunch and work pretty hard during the day”, he said.

Which raises another explanation for Jassy’s RTO mandate. In his memo, he outlined a future vision of Amazon with “fewer managers [to] remove layers and flatten organisations”. Bloom muses that presenteeism might be the best strategy to make this happen. “Requiring five days in the office will lead to a surge in quits.” 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but one thing is for certain: Amazon needs home workers. Otherwise, who will be there for the package deliveries?

Getty Images

More on the US election

PA Media

Into next week

met office

Autumn equinox and beyond

The UK’s impending abolition of a tax perk for wealthy residents has triggered a pan-European hunt for fiscal havens as the rich cast a wide net from sunny upstart destinations such as Portugal to dependable Switzerland.

Tax advisers across the continent are reporting a rush of inquiries that began when the UK’s previous Conservative government pledged to end its non-domicile tax regime from 2025, and accelerated when the new Labour administration said it would follow through on the plan.

Non-dom status is accessible to UK tax residents whose permanent home or “domicile” is overseas. It enables beneficiaries to avoid paying British tax on their foreign income or capital gains for 15 years, provided they do not bring them to the UK.

For the rich whose commitment to the UK will expire with the perk, there are no carbon copies of the British system but several countries offer similar incentives. Those who put a premium on lifestyle are also considering how other locations match up to London’s strengths (its social buzz) and weaknesses (its weather).

Switzerland’s reputation as a haven means it is accustomed to attracting a steady level of interest from the well-off, but Stefan Piller, head of tax and legal at BDO’s Zurich office, said: “We’re getting more requests each week — and many more than we experienced last year.”

The alpine nation’s fiscal appeal centres on its low rates of income tax. Most cantons such as Geneva and Zug offer a lump-sum taxation or “forfait” system, based on individuals’ living expenses, for the very rich, which enables them to cut bespoke deals on what tax they pay. Zurich and Basel have abolished the system.

The resulting levies are “not cheap”, said Justine Markovitz, head of Withers’ Swiss practice, but they do provide much-desired certainty. The downside is that people in the forfait system cannot work in Switzerland.

Another option is Monaco, the tiny Mediterranean principality with no income or capital gains tax, although its extremely high living costs deter some.

Many UK non-doms are weighing their options with April 6, 2025 in mind, the day when the old regime will be abolished. It will be replaced with a new residence-based system under which new resident applicants, who have lived outside the UK for at least a decade, will be exempt from UK tax on foreign income or capital gains for four years, not 15.

Concentrating minds is the fact that the Labour government has said it will also remove the ability to permanently shield foreign assets held in a trust from the UK’s 40 per cent inheritance tax.

“It is inheritance tax that is causing most of the upset,” Markovitz said. “I’m finding many people say: ‘I can’t do that for my kids, I can’t sacrifice 40 per cent of my asset base.”

Switzerland does not set inheritance tax at a federal level and its cantons typically charge relatively low or no inheritance tax. Portugal, another place attracting the wealthy’s attention, does not impose an inheritance tax either. Lisbon does impose a 10 per cent “stamp duty” on Portuguese assets passed on after death, but it does not apply to assets overseas.

Portugal has offered more besides: in the past decade it has courted foreigners with golden visas and a generous fiscal regime for tax residents who remained domiciled elsewhere. But rich individuals are discovering much has changed.

Its previous centre-left government scrapped the non-dom regime last year and replaced it with more limited tax incentives for foreigners and returning Portuguese expatriates who have work contracts in certain fields, including technology, R&D and academia. Those incentives include a tax exemption on foreign income, excluding pensions, and a 20 per cent flat tax on Portuguese work or business income from qualifying activities.

Now, crucially, a new centre-right government is drawing up regulations to implement its predecessor’s policy by year-end — and tax advisers expect more people to become eligible for the new system.

“We have received many questions,” said Luís Nascimento, a tax adviser at consultancy Ilya. “[But] until the government publishes the new ordinance, there is still a lot of uncertainty about what the new regime will be.”

Nuno Cunha Barnabé, tax partner at Lisbon law firm Abreu Advogados, said Portugal is also keen to sell its lifestyle. “If you live in London and what you like about it is going to fancy restaurants, the nightlife and the buzz, then Portugal is not for you,” he said. “But if you want a country that is quieter, where the weather is good, where there is outdoor living, Portugal is probably for you.”

A Mediterranean lifestyle is also part of Italy’s appeal, which is set to endure despite Rome’s recent decision to double a flat tax on the foreign income of rich expats to €200,000 a year.

“If you are asking someone to buy a product and the next day it doubles, no one is happy,” said Jacopo Zamboni, executive director for private clients at Henley & Partners. But, he added, “when you assess the pros and cons, clients want a stable legislative framework — they don’t want only a stable tax amount.”

Italy’s regime, which is available for 15 years to new tax residents who invest at least €250,000, was set up in 2016 in a post-Brexit push to lure wealthy people away from the UK. Since 2017 it is estimated to have attracted about 4,000 multimillionaires, including oligarchs and private equity investors. Wealthy individuals who relocated before the recent increase will continue to pay €100,000 a year.

Across the Ionian Sea, Greece boasts a lower cost of living than Italy — though that may be of negligible importance to the very rich — and a similar system. Introduced in 2019, its regime offers a flat annual tax of €100,000 on foreign income for 15 years for individuals who meet residency requirements and invest at least €500,000 in real estate, businesses, or securities.

So far the regime has attracted more than 230 millionaires to the country.

Vassilis Vizas, leader of tax and legal services at PwC Greece, said he had seen a surge in interest in Greece from UK non-doms in recent months, but noted that most of them were rich individuals of Greek descent.

The durability of Greece’s fiscal regime is one issue on the minds of potential residents.

Although Vizas sees no signs of reforms on the horizon, he said “one common question is whether the favourable tax policies will remain unchanged”.

Additional reporting by Sérgio Aníbal in Lisbon

Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a leftist politician, is leading Sri Lanka’s presidential election.

The election on Saturday is the first to be held since mass protests unseated the country’s leader, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in 2022 after the country suffered its worst economic crisis.

Dissanayake promised voters tough anti-corruption measures and good governance – messages that have resonated strongly with voters who have been clamouring for systematic change since the crisis.

The latest results on Sunday morning showed Dissanayake had won 42% of the votes counted. A candidate needs 51% to be declared the winner.

Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa is in second place with nearly 32% of the total vote. President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is seeking a second term, has so far received 16% while Namal Rajapaksa, the nephew of the ousted president has got close to 3%.

If a candidate fails to secure 51% of the votes in the first round of counting, a second round will be held to include voters’ second and third choice for president.

All of Sri Lanka’s eight presidential elections since 1982 have seen the winner emerge during the first round of counting. This election has been described as one of the closest in the country’s history.

Seventeen million Sri Lankans were eligible to vote on Saturday and the country’s elections commission said it was the most peaceful in the country’s history.

Still, police announced a curfew late Saturday night citing “public safety. It was extended until noon local time (06:30 GMT).

Although he has not yet received the required number of votes to win, Dissanayake has received messages of congratulations from supporters of his two main rivals, Wickremesinghe and Premadasa.

Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said on X that early results clearly pointed to a victory by Dissanayake.

“Though I heavily campaigned for President Ranil Wickremesinghe, the people of Sri Lanka have made their decision, and I fully respect their mandate for Anura Kumara Dissanayake,” he said.

MP Harsha de Silva, who supported Premadasa, said he called Dissanayake to offer his congratulations.

“We campaigned hard for @sajithpremadasa but it was not to be. It is now clear @anuradisanayake will be the new President of #SriLanka,” said de Silva, who represents Colombo in parliament.

Another Premadasa supporter, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) spokesman MA Sumanthiran, said Dissanayake delivered an “impressive win” without relying on “racial or religious chauvinism”.

The country’s new president will be faced with the twin tasks of reviving the economy and lifting millions from crushing poverty.

An economic meltdown fueled the “Aragalaya” (struggle) uprising that unseated Rajapaksa from the presidential palace in 2022.

At that time, Sri Lanka’s foreign currency reserves had dried up, leaving the country unable to import essentials such as fuel. Public debt had ballooned to $83bn while inflation zoomed to 70%.

This made basics like food and medicine unaffordable to to ordinary people.

The country’s economic misery has been blamed on major policy errors, weak exports and years of under-taxation. This was exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which choked tourism, a key economic driver.

But many people have also blamed corruption and mismanagement, fuelling anger against Rajapaksa and his family, who collectively ruled Sri Lanka for more than 10 years.

Wickremesinghe had secured a $2.9bn lifeline from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is crucial to opening additional funding channels, but comes with strict economic and governance policy reforms.

Sri Lanka is restructuring the terms of its debt payments with foreign and domestic lenders, as mandated by the IMF. The main focus has been the country’s $36bn in foreign debt, of which $7bn is owed to China, its largest bilateral creditor.