There should be sorts of an exponential backoff mandated for the contents of bills.
Now, every lobby group keeps pushing their sketchy agenda, knowing well that they will eventually pass it. Worst case it will be passed bit by bit.
zenmac · 4m ago
Good idea. yeah at this point, law making every were just seems like brute force attack at this point. We need some kind of security assure to keep out these 'law making crackers'
Bender · 34m ago
Chat Control repelled 4th time in the EU
Nice! They will keep trying until they wear people down. Keep up the great battle!
eloisant · 30m ago
We have to win every time, they only have to win once
rsynnott · 10m ago
Well, realistically, if this were to pass, it would likely run into trouble with the courts. There's a bit of a history of this; in particular the Data Protection Directive got struck down by the ECJ for violating fundamental rights.
SiempreViernes · 26m ago
No? If they win it mostly flips who pushes the proposal to change the law and who opposes it.
s1mplicissimus · 18m ago
I think the implication was that there's something like a tipping point after which the surveillance leads to people not daring to oppose it in an organized way anymore. Which, at least to me, is a way more realistic danger than, for example, AGI.
Sharlin · 14m ago
It's usually much easier to pass a law than to get rid of it once passed.
oytis · 9m ago
What kind of government will on its own initiative want to give citizens more privacy not to say actively push for it against other governments? EU parliament cannot propose laws, so it would be nearly impossible to grassroor such an initiative
spwa4 · 6m ago
Except ... where do you get the idea that the police forces will respect the law? If you want to get an indication of that just read the judgements here:
Note, especially, how many judgements are about the state already getting convicted a first time and then immediately violating the judgement, and in some cases the size of the convictions tells you something:
(over 6000 very serious individual violations by law enforcement)
Or take https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 where the Greek state illegally abducted 2 children and moved the to the US. Obviously this court provides no recourse, and the Greek state is entirely free to just totally ignore the judgement.
So where do you get this idea that law enforcement or the state will respect the law when they don't get what they want?
nickslaughter02 · 3m ago
All this means there's a blocking minority (supposedly) which can go away immediately if Germany flips. The debate is happening today. Nothing is repelled.
The title needs to be corrected.
kamil55555 · 14m ago
I know normal ordinary people that were defending this...
NeutralForest · 27m ago
Great! Crazy that it can be brought back every time though, it makes me very uncomfortable.
rsynnott · 9m ago
I mean, how else could to work? Beyond a new EU treaty (Lisbon treaty replacement) banning discussion of it, I'm not sure that there's any way to prevent it coming back.
m000 · 1m ago
Voting should be on specific clauses, and if anything is rejected there should be a cooling period before it can be brought up for voting again.
The cooling period does not preclude discussion of course. That's why we pay the MEPs: They are actually expected to show up in the EP and discuss. Not only show up on voting day and follow what their party dictated.
elenchev · 16m ago
see you next year
jacknews · 22m ago
Just ridiculous how authorities are perservering with this.
The ruling should come with a timeout period; they're not allowed to try anything similar again for 20 years or whatever, and even then only if circumstances have changed.
vladms · 35s ago
I prefer a simpler system if possible, adding further rules ("don't try anything similar for X years") seems to me that will make matters worse (who decides if it is similar enough? can you challenge that? at what stage you have to decide? etc.)
Also, are you sure most population is against ? I did not see a poll on that. I know enough people that like "authoritarian" governments and laws, so I think we (the ones that don't agree) should make an effort to convince people that too much "authority" is not the most efficient/smart way. Some of those people are in fact just afraid even if they would not admit it...
Now, every lobby group keeps pushing their sketchy agenda, knowing well that they will eventually pass it. Worst case it will be passed bit by bit.
Nice! They will keep trying until they wear people down. Keep up the great battle!
https://www.echr.coe.int/
Note, especially, how many judgements are about the state already getting convicted a first time and then immediately violating the judgement, and in some cases the size of the convictions tells you something:
https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-t%C3%BCrkiye-...
(over 6000 very serious individual violations by law enforcement)
Or take https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 where the Greek state illegally abducted 2 children and moved the to the US. Obviously this court provides no recourse, and the Greek state is entirely free to just totally ignore the judgement.
So where do you get this idea that law enforcement or the state will respect the law when they don't get what they want?
The title needs to be corrected.
The cooling period does not preclude discussion of course. That's why we pay the MEPs: They are actually expected to show up in the EP and discuss. Not only show up on voting day and follow what their party dictated.
The ruling should come with a timeout period; they're not allowed to try anything similar again for 20 years or whatever, and even then only if circumstances have changed.
Also, are you sure most population is against ? I did not see a poll on that. I know enough people that like "authoritarian" governments and laws, so I think we (the ones that don't agree) should make an effort to convince people that too much "authority" is not the most efficient/smart way. Some of those people are in fact just afraid even if they would not admit it...