291–300 of 947 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We're currently running a long-term offshore experiment to see if 2A has any measurable impact on dragnet surveillance and the NSA.
This, and other similar legislation, serve as a constant reminder of why the American founding fathers had to revolt against tyranny, and why constitution amendments like the 1st and 4th exist. The 4th in particular was written as a response to a British law similar to Chat Control (writs of assistance).
Sadly doesn't seem to make much difference, though. If anything the UK is less authoritarian than the US now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is a nice piece of democracy right here: this is just eu in a nutshell, the irish were made to vote on both nice and lisbon treaties twice (both were voted no in the first vote)
Well, the No vote triggered some adjustments, so this is indeed relatively democratic. What would be the alternative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will rapidly reindustrialize when the first shots are fired. The EU's goal is the strategic defeat of Russia. What the common people think or want is irrelevant. All environmental and climate legislation that gets in the way will be waivered indefinitely until the war is over 5+ years of drone warfare and 100s of thousands dead.
The drone war will be quite limited by chip production. And once the chip fabs have been bombed, civilisation is set by by decades, and may end up fighting a lower-tech war.
Beyond this, if you start attacking neutral fabs you lose out on anything from them. Your expectations are quite a bit off if you think striking fabs stops a conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're currently running a long-term offshore experiment to see if 2A has any measurable impact on dragnet surveillance and the NSA.
There are plenty of things to complain about here, and that is one of them. But that authorization was passed by our elected representatives by a super majority and reauthorized by them multiple times. It was not done by a sneaky maneuver where the majority of congress voted against it but somehow it still became law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The regulation was rejected today with 314 votes against, 276 in favor, and 17 abstentions, but because of Metsola's lawfare that classified this regulation as under an "urgent procedure", an absolute majority was required to reject.
I wonder if the abstentions are counting "missing MEPs" or MEPs present but who did not vote
This article seems to make good points about how useless and invasive Chat Control 1.0 is, but then posits Chat Control 2.0 as the answer. Is the latter not also terrible for privacy, demanding backdoors in all encrypted chat tech?
Surveillance is a branding issue. If you wrap a shit in crepe paper and Corinthian leather, most people will admire what an artist you are.