Hi everyone. Probably not everyone knows but EU has CLOUD Act analogue too - it has a name "e-evidence - cross border access". so this is a description of framework from the official site - "create a European Production Order: this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to obtain electronic evidence (such as emails, text or messages in apps, as well as information to identify a perpetrator as a first step) directly from a service provider or its legal representative in another Member State, which will be obliged to respond within 10 days, and within 8 hours in cases of emergency (compared to up to 120 days for the existing European Investigation Order or an average of 10 months for a Mutual Legal Assistance procedure);"
basically it means that the national authorities of the country where companies are registered no longer has juducial control over law protection of their companies - so for example if extreme right government of Poland will be dissappointed with your post on Mastodon about Pegasus surveillance used by them against political journalists by new Framework they will issue juicial order to obtain your mastodon account details, ip, email etc and will electronically request your mastodon provider (which reside for example in Belgium) to give this data to them withis 8 hours or 10 days (without possibility to make appelation) basically overriding national courts of country of registration of the provider.
Do you believe that EU goverment respect right to privacy and national souvereginity as a fundamental right?
That's weird, as the precursors "European coal and steel community", "european economic community" are clearly economic alliances.
So did you (1)
The answer should not be to bypass judicial prudence. Yet that's what they've chosen.
And that's but one example. The insistence of the unelected EU commission to again and again put chatcontrol for a vote, despite it being unpopular, is another example.
The CRA act is another: basically killing independen softwarw development.
I think you probably grew up in western EU? Those of us that did live under a autoritarian regime, in my case DDR, know the lenghts they will go to to supress people who's thoughts they deem bad.
One of the things that's most difficult to communicate is this: all the freedom surpressing tools that are being build today, which you believe will be used solely against "the bad people", will be used against you. For your own good.
What the EU needs is more direct democracy, not the charade that is parliament/commission, but sadly it's going in the opposite direction.
People who dislike democracy tend to like the EU indeed. I don't think it's a different discussion. I think it's the philosophical core of this issue.
I feel like you and I are in completely different camps in that regard, as you feel the basis of society should be hierarchical and control. This explains why some appreciate less judiciary oversight on government, less freedom for individuals.
Others think the basis of society should be cooperation, appreciation of individuals, freedom both for and from others.
For the people who prefer domination and control I can only advise empathy. It won't be you who controls others. So try to feel what it's like to not be regarded as a person that deserves freedom and agency. People are more than an entry in a database.
Exactly, it should be the executive branch! It makes no sense that the executive branch proposes laws! And it makes no sense that a law-making part of government is not up for election. This is one of the least democratic institutes that dares to call itself a democracy.
Where the analogy doesn't work is that knives already exist. A better analogy would be: don't build novel weapons of mass destruction that are pointed at your own populace.
Brings us back to our core philosophical difference: cooperation vs subjugation. A union, to me, is cooperative with everyone's boundaries respected. A union to you is top down dictating who does what.
to the 1900? what? do you think that currently the EU is one big country with no major differences?
the EU consists of several different communities, with different cultures and different thinking. I think each country should be able to keep its healthy dose of sovereignty. I'm not saying what we have today is ideal, but turning everything to be more authoritarian is not going to make anything better.
umm, no, I haven't read it anywhere. It's just how it is. why do you think this is not the case?
are you immediately imagining me as a russian tankie?
well their dose is not healthy
as I see this would either need voluntary high cooperation of most countries, which would be a good thing (but not in the sense of imposing my country's laws on your country because your country hosts servers of interest), but something very hard to achieve because that would need to be maintained for multiple political parties when they are elected.
or a united states of europe that would basically replace each country's political system with a top-down system as the other user said, where there are no local elections for the ruling party anymore, or much less meaningful, but only an EU-wide election. which I'm not sure if it's bad, it's certainly a lot different. but it's not something I like that after that, moving to another EU country is not an option if what you want is to leave a bad legal regime.
you know, maybe I have these main problems with the eu cloud act:
.
If it walk like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Perhaps you should engage in some soul seeking :(
Again, there's more ways to interact with others than (a) everyone is dictated top down vs (b) dog eat dog.
What I propose is voluntary democratic cooperation. An improvement upon the current structure with more respect for everyone.
"In Russia they're doing it too" is to me insufficient motivation to lessen our democratic basis and individual freedoms.
How it should work is a legislative branch to propose laws, a parliament to vote on it, an executive to implement it. The bastardization of the process by the EU is that the executive initiates legislation, and isn't directly elected.
That's why they can repeatedly propose the same unpopular law, without any fear of losing power.
.