I’m assuming this another… misguided… attempt by the security services to make their jobs easier. The grip that intelligence communities apparently have on our governments is ridiculous. Why do they have such influence?
This is because that world is hidden to most people but would have just 20 years ago been covered by classical research journalism, namely the intersections between power, fiscal policy, law, the security state, foreign policy and mass media or other systems of control.
Politics and policy making is downstream from mostly non public clubs of people. Become a part of the security apparatus to gain power and draft plans for whole regions of the world and the future of society. The rest of us get to see their own self branding in Hollywood romantizations and ideological "event driven" smokescreens that cover the realpolitcal battles of power and resources that actually drive history.
That way the masses end up seeing the good fights for "Democracy", "Child safety", "Necessary financial bailouts" or "Primitive stupid people in X country need intervention" while these are all covering a big old game of Risk or Civilization ie. resource plundering, land grabs, violent exploitation of foreign markets, siphoning of wealth from the masses to the few, and panopticon-level systems of control implemented to keep dissent and enlightenment about these fact as much in the dark as possible.
Theres a reason the richest European families already took an interest in controlling the emerging postal services of several hundreds years ago just like early pamphlet media but somehow these very old facts have been so memoryholed everyone thinks we live in a somewhat meritocratic or even democratic society these days.
The EU likes passing internet related legislation because of:
1. The politics of it. It involves the raw exercise of power over people who are easily bullied and that they don't like much, namely successful American companies. The EU loves passing extra-territorial laws and seeing people jump, it makes them feel like a big power bloc which is the whole aim of the EU project to begin with.
2. The revenue from it. Tech companies either fight or they try to obey, but the laws are vague and easily reinterpreted. This yields massive fines which go straight into the EU coffers, money which is then spent on purchasing loyalty both of the elected political elites (via post-election-loss sinecures and enormous "pensions" that start being paid out long before retirement), and the population itself (via EU branded projects and grants).
3. The unaccountability of it. EU law is created by the Commission which does whatever it wants. By treaty it is accountable to nothing except itself and it is the highest power in Europe. In that situation why not spend all your time on easily achieved upper-class luxury agenda items like internet regulation, which feels futuristic and cool, instead of messy stuff that bothers the regular citizens like illegal immigration, where you don't want to do it and failure comes easy?
That's why there's a constant flood of tech-related regulation coming from the EU. Seeing this specific act in isolation is a mistake, it's just the continuation of a long term trend.
The commission President is proposed by the council (the heads of states) and appointed by parliament.
I’m not aware of the EU arresting random US citizens for breaking laws like the gdpr, you’re thinking of America and the DMCA
So the Commissioners are in reality selected by the President.
This problem appears in every HN thread about the EU or its activities. People argue that it's a legitimate democratic structure based on how its treaties say it works, but the treaties aren't followed.
And before someone says otherwise, I’ve seen this playing out hundreds of times.
If you look around you see plenty of people that gets upvoted and are critical of EU, so that isn't it.
Fair chance they'll just keep using letsencrypt.
If you spend time in central Europe you'll see why this occurs. Some people have incorporated the EU institutions into their personal identity. People will call themselves European Citizens although the EU doesn't grant citizenship. Businesses will be called Euro-this or Euro-that for no obvious reason. You can catch the Eurobus to go ride the rollercoasters at the Europa Park then meet their famous mascot Ed Euromouse. This stuff is everywhere.
And in some ways, it is understandable. The 20th century was wracked by wars between different European empires or countries. The assumption at the core of this movement is that if everyone has the same social identity and is ruled by the same government, then everyone will hold hands and there will be peace on Earth. Or at least that bit of it.
But you can't force unity on people. It has to develop naturally, through shared experiences and cultures. Unfortunately the vision is so enticing that the political and credentialed classes in these countries don't want to wait, and so attempt to enforce it from the top down via schemes that eliminate democracy in favor of power transfers towards the Right Sort Of People, the type who "get it" and who can then rule unchecked without needing to answer to electorates. This is deeply corrupting, but because it's an identity issue when this is pointed out people feel their personal identity and whole progress story is under attack.
The Commission is the sole source of legislation. The Council cannot change EU law against the will of the Commission, so in practice it's a rubber stamp body that just always votes yes to everything.
This is what I'm saying in another comment: HN is flooded with incorrect claims about how the EU actually works, always in the direction of making it sound more accountable than it actually is.