131–140 of 780 posts
It seems like there is a lot of ideological push for freedom, but as criminal activity moves to the virtual world, have we not created a problem for ourselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can now vote for a party who can try to fix this. It wouldn't be possible if that was EU wide.
Brexit was founded on the misunderstanding that it was "faceless unelected bureaucrats" that run the EU. I'd argue Britons wielded more power than most others in the EU, and that the EU parliament is quite a lot more democratic than the British one. The british are now stuck with the UK parliament without adult supervision.
So to which EU politician do I send GDPR complaint to? The EU politicians have completely isolated themselves from the common folk through their bureaucratical system.
That's the biggest problem with the EU. There is no accountability and as an individual you have no recourse, even your vote does not matter
Instead of the Office and President, have a commission of 50 presidents. Each state chooses one commissioner. But not by election, instead let the state legislature choose the commissioner for the state. The House needs to approve the members of the commission.
Instead of Senate, have regular meetings of all state governors (or someone from their offices). Also, state governors are not chosen in elections, but by the state legislatures.
Keep House as it is, but House cannot initiate new legislation. They can only approve/deny proposals from commission and the governors-senate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU.
> That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU. Explain this logic to me please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
E2E encryption is scary. I'm also in the "you can't ban math, why try" camp. But I can't see authorities/politicians give up the idea of getting access to decrypted communications after court orders, in a 100 years, even if everyone completely understood the topic. It's just not happening.
I mean, if you put it that way, assumption of innocence is also a scary concept; being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist go because you can't prove what they did is routinely touted as a genuinely terrifying prospect in plenty of TV shows. Privacy is a human right in Europe. I don't think it's a pipe dream to give encryption some good PR, especially when it powers the internet,…
- People following the rules would be hurt by it
- People not following the rules will continue as-is and not care
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We now have more control and we can vote for a party that could fix this.
Could you please name a party who's against this? The Pirate Party UK recently disbanded. There is no one to vote for and practically starting a party won't achieve much. Seriously, give me a party to vote for to reduce the state of surveillance in the UK.
I don't have a nice name for people in EU parliament that write these things, they don't really understand what encryption is. It's not a technology. You can't ban encryption. Terrorists can just use unencrypted chat and either use their own encryption or they can use predefined words and sentences that actually have a totally different meaning.