• misk@piefed.socialEnglish
    8·
    6 hours ago

    That „all appropriate risk mitigation measures” is doing a lot of work here. Is it specified anywhere what’s appropriate?

    • LwL@lemmy.world
      8·
      4 hours ago

      If my understanding of the legislative EU process is somewhat correct, this effectively leaves it up to the countries to decide (as EU laws just mean that countries have to pass a law enacting it).

      It’s not rare to phrase laws this way in germany at least. It’s not necessarily bad, as it allows court interpretation to change alongside societal values. In this case it would likely lead to only some countries actually passing mass surveillance laws (it’s pretty unambiguously unconstitutional in a bunch, which makes it clear that mass surveillance is not “reasonable”. Not that that always stops legislators, but it would at least die before the highest court eventually).

      So we still need to fight it, because it’s the first line of defense. Really what we need to push for would likely be explicitly disallowing blanket scanning of communication on the EU level, or proposals like this will happen again and again.

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        3·
        4 hours ago

        Laws are often purposefully vague to account for loopholes and changing circumstances/public attitudes though. It’s the task of courts to define the exact boundaries – and since jury trials aren’t a thing, the interpretations of any higher court will basically ammend the law for lower courts.