That's not what they're saying. They're talking about how digital surveillance from governments leads to these governments staying in power

C'mon, we all know that the main reason for such laws is controlling dissent.

Allegedly, Spanish police is a great supporter of Chat Control, not because of CP, but because of them wanting to spy on Catalan and Basque separatists more effectively.

It is barely relevant to even think about the personal opinions of politicians, if the systemic outcome is the same.

Yes Its an argument for the general public to think of their interests and that the interests of general public says to never do it

But they aren't thinking of our interests, they are thinking of theirs which is what I think that the parent comment wanted to share that their and our interests are fundamentally conflicting and so we must fight for our right I suppose as well.

That last point is even enough as demonstrated by the swiss people voting for the eID, democratically paving the way for future mass surveillance and total dependency to our iOS and Android locked bootloaders overlords. As stated further down this is all stemming from education.

Literally the end of the same sentence says how it's working:

> do exactly these things in a way that has allowed their leadership to go unchallenged for decades now.

The problem is the asymmetry. If the choices were «yes, but we can re-evaluate later» and «no, but we can re-evaluate later» then there wouldn’t be an issue. But especially with laws implemented at the EU level and not national level, it’s extremely difficult to get out of it after it’s been implemented. The choices are in practice, «yes, for the next foreseeable decades» and «no, for the next year».

Nobody’s talking about a blood oath to promise never to revisit the issue. But there’s a different between leaving the door open to future reconsideration, versus pushing consistently against the wishes of the public and only backing off temporarily for tactical reasons.

And for some reason, once these things pass, it’s a one way door. When does the US public get a chance to reconsider the Patriot Act?

The problem is that for government power expansions/individual rights reductions, "Yes" can in fact be taken to mean "Yes forever, without ever revisiting the question". (The mechanism needn't be that there is literally no formal revisiting; it can be sufficient that weakening government power is politically untenable because whoever proposed it will be held accountable for every subsequent bad event that could hypothetically have been prevented with some unknown additional amount of government power.)

Stasis is not great, but surely preferable to an authoritarian ratchet.

Well yes but even a no forever would be revisited under the right circumstances.

But what we do need is a wider no. Not just "no this highly specific combination of stipulations is not ok, let's try it again next month with one or two little tweaks". That's what we have now. Whack a mole. The problem with that is that once it passes they will not have a vote every month to retract it again, then it will be there basically forever.

What we need is a "No this whole concept is out of bounds and we won't try it again unless something changes significantly".

It was an allusion to the tech industry's disrespect for users, when they don't give an option to say no, and please stop asking me, because the company really really wants you to say yes, and what they care about is more important than what the user cares about.

I'm not suggesting that they never reconsider things, just those in government really seem to want it to happen, despite it being unpopular with the electorate, and so they try on a regular basis to get it to happen, despite the public outcry each time.

Politics should follow the exponential backoff model xD

Every time your law fails to pass you cannot revisit it for a longer period of time.

1year 5years 10years Etc

Means that laws with enough political will get passed, but bad laws can be more easily blocked.

>Consider for a moment what a government of "Yes"/"No Forever, without ever revisiting the question" would result in.

That's pretty much what the US constitution is. Once something's in it, it doesn't realistically get out of it.

Wait, so people who maintain strong beliefs that disagree with you long enough to ‘win’ are acting in bad faith (brexit), but working for 10 years to re-enter the EU wouldn’t be?

That’s a tough bar to get past…

The real problem here is that it should be easier to take powers away from them government than to grant them.

If you have a system where passing a law requires three separate elected bodies to approve it, the problem is that it makes bad laws sticky. If a sustained campaign can eventually get a law passed giving the executive too much power and then the executive can veto any future repeal of it, that's bad.

The way you want it to work is that granting the government new powers requires all government bodies to agree, but then any of them can take those powers away. Then you still have all the programs where there is widespread consensus that we ought to have them, but you can't get bad ones locked in place because the proponents were in control of the whole government for ten seconds one time.

As a EU citizen I'd ask for at least a 2/3 majority to let the UK back into the EU, maybe 3/4. They came, they were always skeptical, they left, they want to come back? Please demonstrate that you made up your mind and won't start thinking about another Brexit in less than 10 years.

I know in the US, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is highly involved in Net Neutrality and tech. I once had a long conversation with his aid who specialized in tech issues and was quite happy with what they were trying to do. I'd recommend reaching out to his team. I'd expect that they would be happy to work with you all and help you navigate the space.

Mass emailing is effective because it's en masse. Hence the success in this situation. The things you're citing are the opposite of this approach.

What's happening to women in the UK? I genuinely haven't heard of anything going on there, so I'm just asking for clarification.

The US Supreme Court has engaged in "creative interpretations" for a very, very long time, considering that amending the US constitution seems to be utterly impossible. There's been no meaningful changes in over half a century. So, the flawed system in the country has led to probably over a hundred years of picking apart largely arcane documents that are utterly disconnected from modern life in attempts to map brand new concepts and ideas to those old documents, no matter what. Hell, the current leading school of thought of conservative-aligned law is that interpreting the constitution should be done by imagining what people surely must've thought all those centuries ago. Oddly enough, doing so allows you to make those imaginary historical figures think in whatever way you like!

So, "the left" hasn't done it first, it's a practice that's much older than Roe v. Wade. Just see all the fun games that have long been played with using the Commerce Clause. And besides, your equation isn't fair in the slightest, where one of your sides undeniably grants people rights (even if on shaky grounds), while the other consolidates power and takes those rights away. But oddly enough, only the transgressions of the left have been mercifully corrected by the court, while some other new developments are to be left undisturbed for the foreseeable future. I wonder why?

Last I read he's leaving the country and moving to Portugal.

Its just not that illegal in Denmark. Something I would think minister of justice Hummelgaard should spend his time working on first, before pushing mass surveillance at the european level.

Courts are always the last line of defense, there is no way of avoiding that. Rights are never absolute, but have to be balanced against each other, and the courts are the arbiter of that.

Aside from that, raising public awareness like the Chat Control initiative did is the way to go. And voting in the EU Parliament elections.

> They would be extremely happy for there to be more crime and more unrest about immigration if it meant they could seize powers like these.

What country is this? Sounds really bad.