EU commissioners propose laws, they don't vote for them. The EU parliament will probably reject this.
As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.
As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.
She seemed nice, and did eventually (albeit briefly) lead a splinter party.
But it didn't stop the Bill becoming an Act.
The distinction isn't meaningless but it's certainly a generous one when left to stand on its own.
The commissioners hold little allegiance to the spirit of democracy and these proposals are either career boosters or pet projects for them. They're not just going to pass it on to the parliament and leave it at that. They're going to do their best to finagle behind the scenes, horse trade, intimidate and pull from their endless infatuation with coddling the children the most fantastical justifications that, by pure chance I guess, smear any opponents.
> As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.
But it will help. No modern government will pass a law that grants its citizens more privacy. It's better to have a many smaller ones, each with different rates of deterioration (re privacy) than a super government where every little nudge towards the eventual zero-privacy Internet affects us all at once.
Sadly, residing in a region formerly part of the Russian Empire, together with last year's events, kind of kills the glee I felt in the past whenever I fantasized about the EU disintegrating, which is to say voting to leave the EU would only makes sense if online privacy was the only thing you cared about.
GDPR was passed not that long ago.
Then you read Utah and California have comparable proposals yet I've seen a single mention of them in the whole comment section.
Sorry, I should have been more careful. It's a citizen versus a consumer thing; GDPR is about the latter and does not give you any real privacy gains in regards to your government except in areas where your relationship is business like.
Some Menial Low-Stakes Agency is required to handle your email and address details appropriately, sure, but meanwhile Europol was still able to mass collect data and have the Commission cover for them after they were found out.
You could of course argue that authorities can still make up any kind of law enforcement related reason to exclude you anyways :)
Edit: My point is sorta that the exceptions are a whitelist not a blacklist.
But it will make responsibility clear. Out of the EU, no domestic government can claim plausible deniability on a directive like this, claiming not to support it yet there being nothing they can do about it - while secretly wanting to implement something like that anyway, but without the political fallout.
Anyway, it is way easier for a citizen to affect your local politician rather than some other random countries politicians that don't care about you.
What about the Swedish NDRE, which was found by the ECHR to violate personal privacy, and when urged to correct it they instead extended it? (as per the article).