8 ms·
EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- generic92034 2y agoProtecting democracy by evading democratic processes. If they are not trusting the parliaments to come up with the right decisions, what are they protecting then?
- fdfgyu 2y agoWhen has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.
- generic92034 2y agoThat stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries' systems is problematic.
- ThalesX 2y ago> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I'm not putting us in the bucket of non-democracy just yet but I don't feel it's that far.
- generic92034 2y agoSo we are in complete agreement.
- faggotbreath 2y ago[dead]
- medstrom 2y agoIs this different from your own government?
- ThalesX 2y agoYes, in that we find out what we voted for after the vote instead of before.
- buildfocus 2y agoIs this not similar to ministerial roles and civil servant positions in most governments? You don't vote for the commissioners directly, but your elected representative (leader of your government) does, and that's your path to express preferences & drive accountability. If you don't like the selection, take it up with them. In the UK for example, the people elect members of parliament as their representatives, but MPs choose their party leaders, and the governing party leadership chooses its ministers without any public consultation or debate. What's the difference?
- timrichard 2y agoIn the UK, politicians will often U-turn if they sense that a policy will make them unpopular and make the next election harder to fight. Governments can and do get punished on polling day every five years. Sunak paid for his unpopularity and the record of his government. Could any EU voters do anything about Ursula getting a second term? (and once again she was the only name on the ballot and then only just scraped through). The EU commission is not concerned with democratic accountability. Power is concentrated in the Commission and Council. There's a very weak link back to the electorate, but it's homeopathic democracy.
- gillesjacobs 2y ago> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't. And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. When lobbyists have more sway than citizens, you've got a problem. The EU is a masterclass in obfuscating accountability behind layers of bureaucracy. It's democracy laundering, plain and simple.
- generic92034 2y agoThe commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by the MEP negotiating. What really is missing is the right to propose laws for the EP. But for that you would need to agree about a way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate. Again, it is way easier organizing a democratic system in a single nation state than in a confederation of sovereign countries with sometimes very different national systems and views. And I am not saying that to brush over the democratic deficit of the current EU implementation, but just to acknowledge the level of difficulty.
- gillesjacobs 2y agoYou hit upon the "locality principle of representative democracy": the more non-local elected representatives are in their excertion of power, the less oversight by the electorate. EU Law is seperated from the electorate by multiple layers: electorate > national parties > national parliament > national government > Council of the EU > European Parliament > European Commission > EU law Each layer dilutes democratic input and accountability. By the time you reach EU law, the average voter's influence is homeopathic at best. Localists would argue since a federation is highly non-local it shouldn't even be attempted because it leads inherently to non-representative centralisation of power. This multi-layered separation explains why EU citizens feel disconnected from Brussels decision-making. It's a game of democratic telephone where the message gets garbled with each step and the centralist power machine inserts its own interests.
- consp 2y agoRemind me please what eu wide referendum was ignored?
- docdeek 2y agoAll of them? None of them? To my knowledge there have been plenty of referendums regarding the EU over the last half century but there has not been a single EU-wide referendum. There’s a list here (pp.5-6) of plenty of them which clearly notes that some EU countries have not held referendums. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/729358/EPRS_IDA(2022)729358_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/7293... Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue.
- timrichard 2y ago> Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue. And the playbook was almost followed in the UK following Brexit. For three years politicians and various interests called for a "confirmatory vote", or a "peoples' vote" (as if people didn't vote the first time round).
- fdfgyu 2y agoWho said EU wide? The rules are clear, changes in EU rules must be unanimous. Typically, governments agree to changes affecting their countries' constitutions and sovereignty w/out consulting voters (how democratic! /s). Occasionally a government will allow a vote. And when they lose, they ignore the vote.
- hcfman 2y agoPrecisely. The Netherlands has this way of fighting organisated crime that they call an intervention. This is organised by groups of government organisations like the police, council etc. If they want to do illegal things they use weak civilian individuals, likely people they were able blackmail. There are no rules as to what an intervention can be and zero accountability. They will and have obstructed justice all the way to the courts, loosing evidence etc from the illegal activities their proxies have done. Welcome to the new world. Apparently Belgium and Germany now also use this approach.
- raverbashing 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway48476 2y agoThemselves. They protect themselves, their power and position at the expense of everyone.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gmerc 2y agoI mean we’re 20 years into shipping suspects without trial to Cuba
- generic92034 2y agoThe article is about the EU, though.
- gmerc 2y agoIt’s good context for all those “slip into totalitarianism” comments
- fdfgyu 2y agoSo? Did we already forget the Polish blacksites? Have we already forgotten the Italian secret services aiding the abduction of a man in Italy?
- generic92034 2y agoIn general you have a point, but still that did not happen in Cuba.
- fdfgyu 2y agoMy point is that this is who the EU is, and always has been. Whoever bemoans that the EU is becoming like the US is clutching pearls.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- questinthrow 2y agoWell the entire surveillance system we've slaved over to build during the ZIRP boom is ready to roll, AI was the final piece for cheap summarization of potential threats. Now the laws have to be drafted gently to boil the frog.
- HPsquared 2y agoDeus Ex plot happening ahead of schedule. It's pretty cool to watch, honestly. A bit concerning.
- kmfrk 2y agoexecutive summaries as a service
- fat_cantor 2y agofor eSaaSinations
- FollowingTheDao 2y agoI hope some of you here who wrote this code do something about it. Time for protests...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rosmax_1337 2y agoThis will be used to silence political dissent in the EU. The current rulers fear the change which could come about if they allow the political climate to shift in the direction which it is ready to.
- kranke155 2y agoHow silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.
- aldsfh 2y agoThere is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes.
- throwaway48476 2y agoPolitics across the world has ossified and become terrified of change. So they stick their heads in the sand.
- squigz 2y agoWhy do you think that is?
- throwaway48476 2y agoGlobalization. If you're a rich person you spend most of your life in the company of other rich people across the world. If you're a politician you spend it with other politicians. It's natural for a person to feel some kind of group affinity for the people they interact with the most. The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society. edit: This was intentional as it was thought that such a system would reduce international conflict.
- pistoleer 2y ago[flagged]
- frankjr 2y agoLooks like the descent into totalitarianism is going well.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jonathanstrange 2y agoThat's pretty crazy, it looks a lot like in Minority Report. Notice the reference to a "future criminal offence" and the phrase "leading to the belief" in the criteria: A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.” A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, verifiable information” leading to a belief that the individual in question “will in the future commit, facilitate, support or engage in terrorist or violent extremist offences.” A series of “indicative auxiliary criteria”. This could be involvement in terrorist offences, sharing terrorist content online, or being the subject of an EU entry ban.
- bawolff 2y agoMinority report was about arresting people based on the word of psychics. There is a big difference between that and having evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future. Of course it is possible to abuse such things, which is why its important to have reasonable definitions for these things.
- logicchains 2y agoIt's not "evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future", it's evidence "leading to a belief someone intends to commit a crime in the future". With no objective standard for that "belief".
- Dalewyn 2y agoAs Richelieu once put it: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- wickedsight 2y agoInterestingly, this works both for how people interpret this law and how the law might interpret the writing of suspects.
- poszlem 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway48476 2y agoPeople might use that integration to topple the powers that be, too dangerous.
- rbanffy 2y agoIt's indeed very dangerous to have the people choose their government if it's not the one we've been used to.
- questinthrow 2y agoAssuming I'm a politician, couldn't I use those imported people to stir up trouble so I can get enough political support to change legislation so it fits me like in the article here? More surveillance and control isn't a bad thing if you're at the top. Furthermore these imported people all have very simple "triggers" to make them do violent stuff so its very easy to use them towards your own ends.
- throw90127 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 123yawaworht456 2y agothe wages for the businesses the politicians and their donors own are driven way down, the value of the properties the politicians and their donors own are driven way up, and they're willing to sacrifice as many of your freedoms and your lives as they must to keep it up.
- johndunne 2y agoFrom the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.
- smashah 2y agoMaybe it's not a coincidence that the more shameless politicians ignore peaceful protests while doing the bidding of lobbyists, the more climate-concerned people feel the need to escalate their nuisance tactics which conveniently makes those same shameless politicians feel that they can justify more draconian measures to stifle privacy, speech and activism.
- FollowingTheDao 2y agoGhandi set the standard for effective peaceful protests. Most protests I see people doing are laughably useless. You have to know how to suffer for what is important. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistance-and-results https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistan... "Thus was born satyagraha (“devotion to truth”), a new technique for redressing wrongs through inviting, rather than inflicting, suffering, for resisting adversaries without rancor and fighting them without violence."
- squigz 2y agoDevotion to one's ideals despite suffering for them is admirable, but not an option for many people. They have children to take care of, families to provide for. They just want to live their lives without inviting more pain into it. That is not something I'm going to hold against people or laugh at them for.
- teddyh 2y agoIf you are not prepared to sacrifice anything at all for your ideals, you by definition consider your ideals to be worthless.
- pushupentry1219 2y agoBeing a "Terrorist" is a badge of honour at this rate. The way they chop+change and broaden their definitions. Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist.
- faggotbreath 2y ago[dead]
- flaterff 2y agoEventually we will all be freedom fighters I mean terrorists.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago> Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist. Mandela was the leader of MK[0], an organization which publicly undertook a campaign of bombing and sabotage. Whatever you think of Mandela or his reasons, labeling him a "terrorist" seems a lot more defensible than most. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_weSizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_weSizwe
- llm_trw 2y agoLest we forgot how they dealt with collaborators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing >Necklacing is a method of extrajudicial summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire drenched with petrol around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The term "necklace" originated in the 1980s in black townships of apartheid South Africa where suspected apartheid collaborators were publicly executed in this fashion.[1]
- v7n 2y agoThe headline got me worried, but after reading the article it became clear that was purposeful with weasel words like "states can now collect". There seem to be no new databases or new actual mechanisms in place, it's just about the clarification of which kind of potential threats are encouraged to be entered into the already existent system. The criteria seems reasonable enough. If there is objective, verifiable information that an individual, who has been sharing terrorist content online, will commit a violent extremist offense in the future and that offense would be serious enough... I would hope that this data is shared between the Union members now and in the future.
- generic92034 2y ago> I would hope that this data is shared between the Union members now and in the future. If parliaments had decided that, my objections would be much lower. But the institutions just deciding for themselves seems to be potentially abusive. It is not like there would be no examples.
- v7n 2y agoMy understanding is that this has always been the intended purpose of this system and these guidelines are just about agreeing on a mutual interpretation of some dense legalese. If that's correct then I'm not too upset about this being handled in the Commission, but the issue remains important to me so I will partake in the outrage if I hear compelling enough arguments to do so.
- llm_trw 2y agoTo quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last 10 years purging the old guard who they called free speech fanatics they'd have someone in their corner. Now I just have the world tiniest violin for them. Or to use much better words than mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM
- nick486 2y ago>> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. I love this line. Its like a riff on the old radio Yerevan joke. > Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. > A: Yes, and the US Constitution also guarantees freedom after speech.
- llm_trw 2y agoI got called a Russian bot on the world news subreddit for using that joke, then banned for disinformation, then got muted for 30 days after I asked what I'd said that was disinformation. Or to use another Radio Yerevan joke: Q: Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov from Moscow won a car in a lottery? A: In principle yes, but: it wasn't Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov but Aleksander Aleksandrovich Aleksandrov; he is not from Moscow but from Odessa; it was not a car but a bicycle; he didn't win it, but it was stolen from him.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xoa 2y agoIt's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The reason this line is bad is because it's wrong and misused from multiple directions due to overloading/being vague with "consequences". Freedom of speech is freedom from VIOLENT, or directly violent adjacent [0], consequences, public or private. But SOCIAL consequences aren't infringement on free speech rights, they are exercising free speech rights. The exact same freedom of speech and association that gives you the right to say something offensive also gives everyone else the right to say offensive things back and/or never have anything to do with you again. Free speech culture and principles typically encourage attempting to maintain a more open and curious mind then you are required to, and to use your rights with appropriate measure and discretion. And of course social/economic consequences go round and round, too harsh a reaction may result in others treating the one who is judged to have been too harsh with consequences in turn, and on and on. That's the vibrant market of ideas. But it's false if someone brings this line up to support or excuse violent speech suppression, and it's also false if someone brings this up sarcastically and tries to equate bans from private soap boxes, people refusing to offer support, people offering criticism, etc with use of violence. If you get banned from some web forum, which is said web forum's freedom of speech, and then whine about your free speech rights, and someone says "that doesn't give you freedom from consequences" you should recognize they're completely correct as far as social consequences go, and would be completely wrong if they said you should get fined or imprisoned or beat up or the like. I consider myself a "free speech absolutist", but that's within a wholistic understanding of the whole system of free speech applying to everyone with infinite regression. The phase has gotten a bad name from hypocrites who call themselves that while then complaining loudly about others exercising their free speech (which of course is itself free speech). ---- 0: For example if government imposes a fine someone might say that's not violence, but the reason it's a "fine" not a "suggestion" is that it's backed by the government's general monopoly on violence. What makes a law a law is what happens if you don't go along with it. It can be nested many levels deep, and involve discretion and resource limits, but ultimately it always ends up with violence.
- throw0101d 2y agoSee also US no fly list: too dangerous to allow on a plane, not dangerous to arrest. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
- EasyMark 2y agoI could see this easily used to harass political opponents if you were President and didn’t want your political critics to move around easily if you were the type to do such a thing, but didn’t want to full-on and actually imprison them. This would send a message with some plausible deniability.
- raverbashing 2y ago[flagged]
- egeozcan 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 2y agoHow is the notion of conspiracy to commit a crime framed in the US legal system (including entrapment) and what would be the provisions against overreach in those cases? I remember not so long ago a couple people were arrested for conspiring to kidnap a governor in the US. They never actually committed the crime though.
- throwaway48476 2y agoThe law only matters insofar as you have enough money to drag it through court long enough to get a ruling. The government has unlimited money to spend in prosecution and will freeze yours to hobble your defense.
- rbanffy 2y agoThen, I'd say, the US has far more pressing problems than this EU policy.
- throwaway48476 2y agoThe EU is a canary in the mine and a case study in the slide towards authoritarianism that the US is not uniquely safe from.
- rbanffy 2y agoI'd argue you have already crossed into that space a long time ago. Just observe the numerous transgressions by various police enforcement agencies. When you hire officers with tattooed swastikas, authoritarianism is kind of what you get. I grew up in a society where I was completely unaware of it, just because I was a white, middle-class, very caucasian, cishet male. I never feared a police stop. I have never feared the police would storm a party, show, or rave I was in and kill a dozen people. I moved to Ireland and was rapidly integrated into their society. I never faced any form of discrimination. A lot of Brazilians there and here are not so lucky. My Indian colleagues tell horror stories of their encounters with less enlightened members of my adopted country's population. You wouldn't want t be one of them.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]