3 ms·

> this is a key advance for the european union to be a global reference in the digital field, protecting our democratic rights and values. very few things are

> this is a key advance for the european union to be a global reference in the digital field, protecting our democratic rights and values. very few things are as abused as ‘democracy.’ the mind boggles how a global identification system has anything to do with democracy. not to talk of protecting ‘democratic rights and values.’ bear in mind that at the european union level there is no democracy. at least in the form that we have come to expect it at the national level. it has become an all-recipe ingredient: drop a few pinches in there and criticism of the scheme is criticism of democracy itself. update: more broadly, communications in general, but political communications especially, have intentionally embraced the nonsense and murky. they don’t expect it to make sense to you, but worse, they don’t expect to be grilled through their own words. see the US’s white house press briefing for example. stinkiest of word salads but hey!

morsch 3y ago
> the mind boggles how a global identification system has anything to do with democracy. not to talk of protecting ‘democratic rights and values.’ But she did talk about democratic rights and values, the rest is you editorializing. As to the how: the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finance companies. You don't have to agree that a) those are important values, b) having a European (not global!) SSO serves them, or c) that this implementation does, but if the whole thing is incomprehensible to you, then you're not part of the conversation. > bear in mind that at the european union level there is no democracy. at least in the form that we have come to expect it at the national level. it has become an all-recipe ingredient: drop a few pinches in there and criticism of the scheme is criticism of democracy itself. The parliament is directly elected, the commission is designated by the (democratically elected) governments and approved by the parliament, the European council consists of representatives of the (democratically elected) governments. It's just complicated enough that people who either don't understand it or just don't like the EU for other reasons keep repeating that it's not democratic.
- yawboakye 3y ago
  > the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finance companies. i think we can’t have an argument because you’re seeing the idea rather than the implementation and all the mutations it will undergo. there’s no orwellian system in existence now, except in the hands of intelligence agencies, that set out with explicit goal to do evil. they start nobly, but with such unfettered access to personal information that only supernatural self-restraint can stay the hand of abuse. so maybe let’s talk about this system in a couple of years time. i preambled my submission with an acknowledgment that democracy is among the most abused terms. i guess all you need is to throw a popular election somewhere in there and voila there’s your democracy, however far away it is removed from the decision making body.

morsch 3y ago

> the mind boggles how a global identification system has anything to do with democracy. not to talk of protecting ‘democratic rights and values.’ But she did talk about democratic rights and values, the rest is you editorializing. As to the how: the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finance companies. You don't have to agree that a) those are important values, b) having a European (not global!) SSO serves them, or c) that this implementation does, but if the whole thing is incomprehensible to you, then you're not part of the conversation. > bear in mind that at the european union level there is no democracy. at least in the form that we have come to expect it at the national level. it has become an all-recipe ingredient: drop a few pinches in there and criticism of the scheme is criticism of democracy itself. The parliament is directly elected, the commission is designated by the (democratically elected) governments and approved by the parliament, the European council consists of representatives of the (democratically elected) governments. It's just complicated enough that people who either don't understand it or just don't like the EU for other reasons keep repeating that it's not democratic.

yawboakye 3y ago
> the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finance companies. i think we can’t have an argument because you’re seeing the idea rather than the implementation and all the mutations it will undergo. there’s no orwellian system in existence now, except in the hands of intelligence agencies, that set out with explicit goal to do evil. they start nobly, but with such unfettered access to personal information that only supernatural self-restraint can stay the hand of abuse. so maybe let’s talk about this system in a couple of years time. i preambled my submission with an acknowledgment that democracy is among the most abused terms. i guess all you need is to throw a popular election somewhere in there and voila there’s your democracy, however far away it is removed from the decision making body.