| ▲ | layer8 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | btilly 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||