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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration
The EU Commission is the executive branch and it’s approved by the parliament. You should check the basics.
You basically say that we should stop producing knives because someone could use them against people.
In this specific case, I don’t see why in a union the location of a person or a company should have any influence on how the law operates. By the way, these laws also work the other way around in favor of the weaks. Imagine if you wanted to sue a guy protected by his government that made it difficult to collect proofs.
It’s a nice idea on paper, but I doubt that it would work. The truth is that the vast majority of people fail to understand the basic functioning of the institutions, not to mention how they easily fall for misinformation and conspirationism due to a lack of critical sense and knowledge. It’s a different discussion though.
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.
That’s your opinion and it’s not based on facts.
No I don’t.
I’m afraid that you don’t understand how the executive power works.
You also do not understand the difference between a parliament and a government.
You shouldn’t assume what I think, especially when you are wrong.
What you propose is an alliance where countries maintain their differences, essentially the dissolution of the EU and the return to the Europe of the early 1900. Interestingly that’s the same thing that Putin and Trump hope for. You are free to think it’s better, but I’m not sure you fully understand what that really means.
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.
Where does this come from? An ultra conservative tabloid?
Although there is still a strong push towards national interests due to some countries’ myopia, the EU members are largely aligned with common rules on every aspect of the social life, the EU laws comes before members’ laws like in a federation, and there are common investments including the cohesion funds (did you ever hear of those?).
Basically what the ECR and the Patriots say, which is amusing because they are the authoritarian ones, including some big fan of Putin, MAGA, and Hitler. When you think about it, it’s not surprising that an “healthy dose of sovereignty” goes side by side with far-right ideas.
You may be right if you talk about initiatives to contrast cryptography (which failed multiple times), but in general the EU has always had a centrist politics thanks to the fact that groups like ECR and Patriots never managed to get the power. In the latest years, the far right is gaining traction with victories in some countries and I dare to say that it’s a mix of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda aiming to push precisely those ideas of an “healthy dose of sovereignty” to weaken what is becoming a political block that could eventually compete with the USA, China, and that could stop the imperialism of Russia. Having some of those far right parties strongly connected to MAGA and Putin, is an interesting “coincidence”.
Check your sources because you have misunderstood lots of things. Unless, of course, you actually want the Europe of 1900.
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:
So you are saying that you have first hand information to state that “the EU consists of several different communities, with different cultures and different thinking”. Who are you? A sociologist who studied the EU for the past two decades?
I’m asking because it’s completely in contrast with my first hand experience. I lived and worked in a few countries besides my original one and I found that the actual differences are more limited to what people eat for breakfast, what stereotypes they have for other countries, and the quality of the services one gets.
So where do you stand? With Farage cherry picking what you like of the Union?
The cornerstone of the EU is the free market that means having a company from Spain able to do business in Germany. To achieve that, it is essential to have common rules and common standards just like it’s essential to eliminate barriers. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The UK tried, and now they are out.
Maybe you didn’t notice, but the European elections are already much more important than the local elections since the internal political economy is largely controlled by the EU. Your government can (for now) play around civil rights, manage pocket money, but cannot go out of the European boundaries that are becoming tighter and tighter every year.
You are attacking a law that removes national barriers because your slightly-fascist country may abuse of that. Fix the fascism instead.
It won’t happen, but even if it does, you run your own.
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.
I propose you to read less anti-EU propaganda. All the initiatives in the EU are made in agreement with the elected EU parliament and are supported by the member states. You should also check how the right of veto works, all the problems for the lack of authority of the EU (contrary to what you say), and what’s the legislative procedure, because you don’t seem to be fully aware of it.