It has been a while since I agreed with politico writers but
> The EU is really having a rule of law problem here
pretty much sums up the situation. But judges can only do so much, although not in a sense the Danish minister uttered in his confusion. Judges interpret the law and we regularly get new sets of laws that allow for more and more mass surveillance. So at one point civil liberties in the EU and Europe will fail like they so often did in the past.
Sadly, the strategy to wait until this generation of old and frightful people finally resigns doesn't seem to work either. I cannot explain this shared pathological myopia. Trauma? Idiocy? Special interests?
One thing is very clear, the EU does not deserve a inch of optimism and its governments decided to lead by example and explain why that is the case.
> [...] this generation of old and frightful people finally resigns [...]
If you thought that replacing these people with the generation than invented "trigger warnings", and demands removal/cancelling of anything remotely uncomfortable would be the end of mass surveillance, then you're going to be disappointed. I think we will get much more instead.
This meme needs to die of old people not understanding tech and privacy ramifications. Privacy is a concern for all generations, and you only have to look at history to know privacy’s importance. (Stasi anyone?). Branding all older generations as not ‘with it’ is ageist and counterproductive. If any generation is more concerned about digital rights and freedom it’s the older generation. Kids these days are feeding from the trough of surveillance capitalism and are sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare.
hardly. Most are unelected beaurocrats that make rules without having to answer to the people. There are pros and cons to it, but its not a democracy IMO.
To me, the idea of heads of government each appointing a commissioner is completely in keeping with democratic norms, such as the way ambassadors are appointed to represent their country abroad and in organisations like the UN.
Similarly, many countries choose their judges by appointment rather than direct election, but perhaps a more relevant comparison is the idea of a senate where each state's legislature appoints one or more representatives to send to a federal or confederal body (as was the case in the US before the seventeenth amendment).
I personally believe the more layers that get added ABOVE the highest elected office (in terms of who sets the rules to follow) that are unelected, the less democratic it is.
Usually appointees and such have LESS power than the elected positions. (Sometimes not, with good reasons, eg. supreme court in the US)
Obviously, there are good reasons to have unelected officials for some things. I believe the EU shouldn't be one of them.
The UN is not itself democratic, it just self-asserts democracy as one of its core values. But it very much does include leadership of countries that are not democracies.
I think this is far too indirect to call it democratic, not only because of practical problems such as most people not even knowing the representatives of their own countries.
The parliament isn't really independent in my opinion. It is the most democratic institution, but I think the EU needs delegation to clearly defined responsibilities. But the parliament would of course never vote for that.
Nobody listens to the EU judiciary anyway. Just look at mass surveillance, Europe's police and intelligence agencies just operate outside of the law.
> The Belgian proposal for targeting areas where there’s lots of crime sets the bar so low that it covers the whole country. Denmark isn’t much better, its crime level threshold means that close to 70 percent of the country’s population will be covered by its framework.
That's just disgusting. It's totally contrary to the spirit of the ruling.
Obviously, they are just avoiding being classist by covering all socio economic groups evenly. (I have heard similar reasoning before why focusing on high crime areas is bad.)
Sick and tired of privacy invasions for the sake of "safety"
High crime areas are that way usually due to persistent intergenerational poverty and a lack of investment in the community combined with little to no local opportunity. That's how things are in the US at least, these conditions create desperation which leads some to desperate measures
I know it’s only a band aid for the problem, but DoH / DNS over HTTPS largely mitigates the problem of every domain being seen and retained by ISPs. It depends on how much you trust the DoH provider. Do you trust a DoH provider more than your ISP? Which leads me into self hosting your own DoH instance and having full control and disabling any form of logs.
(Edit: SNI leaks make DoH redundant but there is Encrypted SNI / ESNI)
There is no coherent legal argument for universal CJEU supremacy. Most EU members implement EU law as simple bills or treaties. Most constitutions assert themselves to be the supreme law and require a super majority to amend them. To assert that EU intuitions can override the constitution without a proper amendment is ridiculous.
Last time I had to come up with constitutional legal arguments it didn't even cross my mind to research EU jurisprudence. I cited some American case law which is as binding as EU case law - not at all. It's a matter of judicial discretion whether one considers a foreign legal argument persuasive. There is no constitutional reason (in most EU countries) to prefer EU stuff. And to disregard the domestic constitution in favor of the EU is indefensible.
21 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 65.0 ms ] thread> The EU is really having a rule of law problem here
pretty much sums up the situation. But judges can only do so much, although not in a sense the Danish minister uttered in his confusion. Judges interpret the law and we regularly get new sets of laws that allow for more and more mass surveillance. So at one point civil liberties in the EU and Europe will fail like they so often did in the past.
Sadly, the strategy to wait until this generation of old and frightful people finally resigns doesn't seem to work either. I cannot explain this shared pathological myopia. Trauma? Idiocy? Special interests?
One thing is very clear, the EU does not deserve a inch of optimism and its governments decided to lead by example and explain why that is the case.
If you thought that replacing these people with the generation than invented "trigger warnings", and demands removal/cancelling of anything remotely uncomfortable would be the end of mass surveillance, then you're going to be disappointed. I think we will get much more instead.
The real battle is class, the capital owning class wants to control the working class and that's why we get these laws
They spread propaganda and write legislation through think tanks in the US, I can only assume there are similar mechanisms in the EU
hardly. Most are unelected beaurocrats that make rules without having to answer to the people. There are pros and cons to it, but its not a democracy IMO.
Most what? Do you mean "most MEPs"? Or "most Europeans"? Or "most civil servants"?
It's not clear what you're specifically referring to that makes the EU different from any other democracy.
To me, the idea of heads of government each appointing a commissioner is completely in keeping with democratic norms, such as the way ambassadors are appointed to represent their country abroad and in organisations like the UN.
Similarly, many countries choose their judges by appointment rather than direct election, but perhaps a more relevant comparison is the idea of a senate where each state's legislature appoints one or more representatives to send to a federal or confederal body (as was the case in the US before the seventeenth amendment).
Usually appointees and such have LESS power than the elected positions. (Sometimes not, with good reasons, eg. supreme court in the US)
Obviously, there are good reasons to have unelected officials for some things. I believe the EU shouldn't be one of them.
I think this is far too indirect to call it democratic, not only because of practical problems such as most people not even knowing the representatives of their own countries.
The parliament isn't really independent in my opinion. It is the most democratic institution, but I think the EU needs delegation to clearly defined responsibilities. But the parliament would of course never vote for that.
Nobody listens to the EU judiciary anyway. Just look at mass surveillance, Europe's police and intelligence agencies just operate outside of the law.
That's just disgusting. It's totally contrary to the spirit of the ruling.
Sick and tired of privacy invasions for the sake of "safety"
(Edit: SNI leaks make DoH redundant but there is Encrypted SNI / ESNI)
No. Absolutely no. Especially when they are forced down your throat by the browsers in the name of safety and privacy.
Last time I had to come up with constitutional legal arguments it didn't even cross my mind to research EU jurisprudence. I cited some American case law which is as binding as EU case law - not at all. It's a matter of judicial discretion whether one considers a foreign legal argument persuasive. There is no constitutional reason (in most EU countries) to prefer EU stuff. And to disregard the domestic constitution in favor of the EU is indefensible.