Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groups Accuse EU Parliament of "Caving In" To Pressure From Business and US

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it-all-makes-perfect-sense-expressed-in-dollars-and-cents dept.

EU 58

angry tapir writes "The European Parliament's industry committee has approved more than 900 amendments to proposed new data protection laws. Civil liberties groups and consumer organizations were quick to accuse members of the Parliament (MEPs) of caving in to pressure from big business and the U.S. 'The Conservative and Liberal parties in the Parliament have voted against the interests of European consumers, who expect MEPs to ensure existing E.U. data protection standards are not diluted,' said Monique Goyens, director general of the European consumer organization, BEUC."

cancel ×

58 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quelle surprise! (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964101)

Conservatives and liberals voting against the peoples interest - who would of guessed.

(note for our American friends - liberal means center right here)

Re:Quelle surprise! (2)

solidraven (1633185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964113)

No, liberal means people who are interested in business interests.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964165)

which tends to amount to the same thing.

Re:Quelle surprise! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964541)

No, liberal means people who are interested in business interests.

I would say: no... but it's 50% yes and 50% no.
Liberal in Europe and in US has a different meaning and the first statement is much more correct. For instance, in Italy the "Partito Liberale Italiano" was a center-right party.
The point is that "liberalism" applied to economy is a center-right concept, while "liberalism" applied to "social matter" is a center-left concept.
The difference at this point is easy: in EU we apply the meaning of "liberalism" to economic matters and US people apply this word to the social matters.

Re:Quelle surprise! (2)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42965655)

Bear in mind that anyone in Europe who wanted to abolish state healthcare provision would be considered so extreme right wing that they would get less votes than the Monster Raving Looney Party. Actually they probably wouldn't get any votes at all, because they wouldn't be able to find the 10 or so people needed to nominate them on the ballot paper.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

maxadamo (2847197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42965965)

(I am the same person who commented before)..... I don't know. In my opinion, after 1989 the situation is getting every day worse in the whole Europe and we're losing those rights that we had before. Nowadays, everybody, center-left and center-right politicians, tend to abolish "welfare" and "state healthcare". Only extreme left is trying to defend those rights.... and I belong to those "crazy" extreme-leftists. In Italy, before '90, we had things like "equo canone", and renting a house was really cheap, we had the "scala mobile" and salaries were growing with the cost of life, car insurance prices were controlled and they were very cheap.... we had, we had, we had.... now we have nothing and in the near future we'll have even less. Now they call it "modernity", but it really looks like something that we already had in the XIX century.....

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42968495)

How dare you criticize your lords and masters, who are so much better than you? You must accept those sacrifice for the good of yoorop. Bend over, spread open your anus and think of the glory of yoorop! /s

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

maxadamo (2847197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42969303)

How dare you criticize your lords and masters, who are so much better than you? You must accept those sacrifice for the good of yoorop. Bend over, spread open your anus and think of the glory of yoorop! /s

I am not criticizing my masters, I am criticizing those servants who do not have a class consciousness. Therefore, as I have class consciousness, I pay attention and take my anus very tight.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

maxadamo (2847197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42969357)

mhh... now I understand what "yoorop" is... you were sarcastic :)

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42994687)

Ce ne hai messo di tempo, echecazzo... Yes. I speak three languages. Try not to faint.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42970371)

Only extreme left is trying to defend those rights.... and I belong to those "crazy" extreme-leftists. In Italy, before '90, we had things like "equo canone", and renting a house was really cheap, we had the "scala mobile" and salaries were growing with the cost of life, car insurance prices were controlled and they were very cheap.... we had, we had, we had.... now we have nothing

Your country squandered its wealth for a few decades, and that came back to bite you. Such an amazing coincidence.

Now they call it "modernity", but it really looks like something that we already had in the XIX century.....

I think people who worry about things reverting to the 19th century should be solidly in the "conservative" camp. You're about as liberal as the horse and carriage at this point.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975699)

(I am the same person who commented before)..... I don't know. In my opinion, after 1989 the situation is getting every day worse in the whole Europe and we're losing those rights that we had before. Nowadays, everybody, center-left and center-right politicians, tend to abolish "welfare" and "state healthcare".

Our political elite are for the most utterly contaminated with neoliberalism thinking. And after three decade most people now can see neoliberalism means povery for them, our political elite are now mostly disconnected from the population. See how absention, far right and radical left are raising in Greece, Spain, Portugal, France and Spain.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42970933)

The point is that "liberalism" applied to economy is a center-right concept, while "liberalism" applied to "social matter" is a center-left concept.

At least here in Norway I'd disagree, the left is into high taxes, many government services and little economic freedom as well as trying to curb anything they consider harmful or unhealthy activities so little social freedom as well. They want to both provide for you and protect you from yourself. Here I'd say both kinds of liberals are to the right of that, but it's not the "same" right as they disagree almost as much with each other as they do with the left.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971575)

The point is that "liberalism" applied to economy is a center-right concept, while "liberalism" applied to "social matter" is a center-left concept.

At least here in Norway I'd disagree, the left is into high taxes, many government services and little economic freedom as well as trying to curb anything they consider harmful or unhealthy activities so little social freedom as well. They want to both provide for you and protect you from yourself. Here I'd say both kinds of liberals are to the right of that, but it's not the "same" right as they disagree almost as much with each other as they do with the left.

That describes perfectly what is happening in the U.S.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988021)

Liberal has 2 meanings inside Europe too, which is the cause of much confusion and even misled voters sometimes.
There are the "business-friendly" liberals, that interpret liberalism as "unregulated", i.e. business can do what they want.

The original meaning, coming from 19th century liberalism foundations, means freedom for the people from the 19th century ruling class. It emphasis personal freedom and a small state, but not without keeping business in check. It is not hostile to business, but considers business to exist for the people, not the other way round.

Re:Quelle surprise! (2)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964665)

No, that's Fascist. In the US, both parties currently toe that line.

Re:Quelle surprise! (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964673)

Well, it depends what you mean by "here".

I was refering to the article, where "Liberal" is a reference to the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe). This is grouping of European Cenre-right parties. (The lib-dems in the UK, MoDem in France...)

If one read "here" as meaning "here in Europe" then "Liberal" would often be understood as "economicaly liberal", which is what you mean I guess.

Re:Quelle surprise! (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964957)

who would of guessed.

In English we say "would have guessed".

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42966763)

who would of guessed.

In English we say "would have guessed".

No, in English we say "would've guessed." Which is phonetically identical to "would of guessed."

Thank you for proving that snooty language jerk-ism is not limited to the French, however.* We all benefit through self-serving efforts to match the worst characteristics of each other.

(*Some of the French)

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967209)

No, in English we say "would've guessed." Which is phonetically identical to "would of guessed."

Even if that were true* it wouldn't make it OK to write "would of".

[*] It isn't, 'would've', rhymes with 'love', not 'of'

PS: You never heard anybody say "would have"? Where did you grow up?

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975215)

[*] It isn't, 'would've', rhymes with 'love', not 'of'

PS: You never heard anybody say "would have"? Where did you grow up?

In the same land as Merriam-Webster, apparently.

love (\'l[schwa]v\)
of (\[schwa]v; especially before a consonant -.[schwa]... when emphatic, as when it is the last or the first word in a sentence, |[schwa]v...\)

Phonetically identical '[schwa]v' where [schwa] is the printed upside-down e that Slashdot cannot reproduce properly from Unicode.

You've never heard anybody say "would've"?
You grew up where everyone primarily says "would have"?
I sincerely doubt it, since I've never heard "you never heard" without either "have" or the "'ve" contraction from people who actually use "have" in that manner.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

joocemann (1273720) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967883)

I wish I could flag you as someone that will strongly defend bad ideas.

A flag that would prevent me from seeing this crap.

Country bumpkin is not a valid dialect.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42973901)

Country bumpkin is a valid dialect if enough people use it.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057295)

...would.......OF..... guessed.....

That makes no sense. It comes from ignorance and has no linguistic utility other than in using it in dialogue, some will mistake the OF as HAVE, and will understand what you're saying even if you don't really know how to say it.

Say "would... of...." in the context of the purposes of this discussion.... WOULD..... OF..... It does not make sense.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42982589)

No, in English we say "would've guessed." Which is phonetically identical to "would of guessed."

Thank you for proving that snooty language jerk-ism is not limited to the French, however.* We all benefit through self-serving efforts to match the worst characteristics of each other.

(*Some of the French)

I guess you come from the hooked on phonics generation. People should really learn to be grammatically correct. Those grammar mistakes might cost you a shot at a job if you did it on a resume.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42968779)

Both of us would SOUND the same, but in English we would type "would've guessed"

Speaking up so it's better understood why some people type "would of" instead of "would've".

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42975255)

Both of us would SOUND the same, but in English we would type "would've guessed"

Speaking up so it's better understood why some people type "would of" instead of "would've".

Such as the original poster, who was really obviously not American, and quite likely French (hence, the title of this part of the comments).

If you are conversational but not fluent, it's very easy to screw up the written grammar with a bad rendition of the phoneme.

Re:Quelle surprise! (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42977909)

I think you're wrong, this is typically the kind of error that someone to whom English is not the primary language would most likely NOT do. At least not someone who'd have learned it at school, and who has the grammar more formally in mind when writing it. Since "of" doesn't make any kind of grammatical sense at that place (you can't just replace on a whim an auxiliary verb with a preposition), this mistake is more likely to come from someone who spoke English before learning to write it.

Plus, the OP didn't put a space before the exclamation point, which is the rule in French. While admittedly non-conclusive, it hints towards that person not being French.

Re:Quelle surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42965443)

Not to break up anyones concentration on a focused line of thinking, but, wouldn't a weekend of worldwide unilateral revolution by the people of the world fix most of the worlds ills, however crudely?
Just chuck it all and start over with the tools at hand. Eventually, the commotion would settle and there would be a lot of things we would never do again. A lot of new things could be done in their stead.
Are we tough enough to rough it for a while or are we going to be tough enough to live under even worse corporate overlordship growing currently everyday and permeating those governing us?
What do we want for the children? This? This, as it grows a decade or two from now?
Get a gun, get a rope, get the torches and let's make the biggest funeral pyre ever known. EVERYWHERE NOW!

Relevant amendments: (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964147)

"text that would allow companies that control data and third parties to process personal data without informing consumers, on grounds of "legitimate interest""

"The definition of personal data has also been narrowed to exclude 'pseudonymous data' and suggested safeguards were ignored. This is risky because such data can easily be associated to individuals"

So they don't always have to tell you they're collecting personal info and once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964231)

once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

If all other identifying data has been stripped away, it is really "your" data any longer?

I'm not sure that the situation you describe here would protect the data under the existing rules [europa.eu] either:

(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

I think there is a difference between the situation which you describe (which seems to be anonymous data) and pseudonymous data, though, in that pseudonymous data does not have all identifying data stripped out, but rather replaced by a less obvious identifier.

The phone number 07700 900771 might become a2t6#g1, but, if, in a stream / sequence of data, that number always becomes that alternative descriptor, anyone in control of the algorithm / key could convert obtain the original number again with relative easy — just run all possible permutations of the phone number (which is of standard form, with specified structure) through the algorithm and pattern match.

To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.

Re:Relevant amendments: (5, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964399)

>

To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.

With all respect, your mind and common sense are superseded by better minds:

Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets [utexas.edu]

Our techniques are robust to perturbation in the data and tolerate some mistakes in the adversary’s background knowledge.
We apply our de-anonymization methodology to the Netflix Prize dataset, which contains anonymous movie ratings of 500,000 subscribers of Netflix, the world’s largest online movie rental service. We demonstrate that an adversary who knows only a little bit about an individual subscriber can easily identify this subscriber’s record in the dataset. Using the Internet Movie Database as the source of background knowledge, we successfully identified the Netflix records of known users, uncovering their apparent political preferences and other potentially sensitive information

Deanonymizing Mobility Traces: Using Social Networks as a Side-Channel [umd.edu]

Location-based services, which employ data from smartphones, vehicles, etc., are growing in popularity. To reduce the threat that shared location data poses to a user’s privacy, some services anonymize or obfuscate this data. In this paper, we show these methods can be effectively defeated: a set of location traces can be deanonymized given an easily obtained social network graph.

I know... series [whitehatsec.com] (scroll to the bottom of the page)

A LOT About Your Web Browser and Computer
The Country, Town, and City You Are Connecting From (IP Geolocation)
What Websites You Are Logged-In To (Login-Detection via CSRF)
I Know Your Name, and Probably a Whole Lot More (Deanonymization via Likejacking, Followjacking, etc.)
Who You Work For
Your [Corporate] Email Address, and more

De-anonymizing social networks [stanford.edu]

Network de-anonymization task is of multifold significance, with user profile enrichment as one of its most promising applications. After the deanonymization and alignment, we can aggregate and enrich user profile information from different online networking services and make the bundled profiles available for end-users as well as third-party applications.

Actually you know what? lmgtfy [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42965619)

There are times when you would like mod points to go beyond +5

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967087)

Great links — thank you!

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42965023)

once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

If all other identifying data has been stripped away, it is really "your" data any longer?

Yes. Read up on "plagiarism" and "copyright". Sheesh!

Re:Relevant amendments: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964235)

They can store your surname, because surname doesn't uniquely identify you.

They can store your forenames, because foernames don't uniquely identify you.

They can store your dialing code, because dialing code doesn't uniquely identify you.

They can store your telephone number without dialing code, because that doesn't uniquely identify you.

etc.

They then decide to store all of these things, because if doing any of A, B, C, ... is legal, surely doing all of A, B, C, ... has to be legal.

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964499)

They then decide to store all of these things, because if doing any of A, B, C, ... is legal, surely doing all of A, B, C, ... has to be legal.

Reminds me of a French movie about euthanasia, in which the protagonist gets euthanized by having a ton of people do minor, innocent acts which cumulatively euthanize (murder) him. But isn't that argument incomplete in its specification? Doing any A is legal if B isn't done, B is legal if A isn't done, etc.? So doing both A and B is illegal...

Re:Relevant amendments: (1)

cryptolemur (1247988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964775)

So they don't always have to tell you they're collecting personal info and once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

Well no -- if it's for example medical or health care research, then you do have to get explicit, specific, informed concent that can be withdrawn at any time...
There has to be some limits in a civilized society, you know!

why not... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964319)

vote green!

Remember.. (1)

crossmr (957846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964321)

When the same group made such a big deal out of killing ACTA? dog and pony show to make it look like they cared so they could turn around and do this.

This makes me sick (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964347)

_US_ corporations lobbying in the _EU_ -- Disgusting.

Hopefully there'll be a marked drop of Amazon and Ebay customers in the EU after this.

Re:This makes me sick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42966265)

How much of this is "caving in to pressure" and how much is good ole American bribes?

Re:This makes me sick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42981649)

Why is that disgusting? They (and other countries/interests) do the same in the USA! Both commercially and politically.

Yes, we should stop, but if it is a level playing field, let them stop first.

How dare they (0)

locater16 (2326718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964391)

Be concerned for multi billion dollar businesses! We should force all the freely accessible places on the net to disregard all profit making practices and any notion that they could even have the ability to run their affairs in the way they see fit! Places like Facebook belong to the people, the people damn it! We should be able to run it however we want, even if we have to seize the means of service! We'll see about this, it's not over!

Re:How dare they (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964421)

I think you're vastly missing the point.

I don't use facebook, or any social network for that matter. Why should this company have access to my personal data through other avenues?

That is the sort of thing these amendments allow. Perhaps you should RTFA before you chime in with your ill-informed opinion in future.

Should've failed (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964475)

Keep legislation out of the net.

Re:Should've failed (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964703)

The net - Somalia for the 21st century.

Re:Should've failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42966137)

In the early days, the net took off beyond anyone's expectations precisely because there WERE no laws trying to apply themselves to it.

Official Response of the EU Parliament: Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964489)

Official Response of the EU Parliament: Duh!

Act now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42964543)

We need to act now on this!

http://www.privacycampaign.eu/

This data protection directive is probably the most serious and important thing ever. It will very much determine the direction of the world, data protection wise. Not only for the EU, but the world and not only for the next 15-20 years but probably forever.

If we now manage to get a strong data protection law in the EU, US companies will have to learn to deal with it and will have far less problems with data protection consumer rights in the US as well.

A strong data protection law builds the basis for fighting all other laws that endanger freedom and privacy. Be it SOPA, PIPA, CETA or ACTA like treaties, be it CISPA and cybercrime laws, be it a PATRIOT act, forward data retention, 6 strikes, you name it. A strong data protection law is the basis to fight all these Very Bad Things(tm) and if we don't get the momentum in the civil society to stand up now and fight for the right for privacy, all will be lost.

Act NOW! (5, Informative)

I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I (447961) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964633)

We need to act now on this!

privacycampaign.eu [privacycampaign.eu]

This data protection directive is probably the most serious and important thing for net politics ever. It will very much determine the direction of the world, data protection wise. Not only for the EU, but the world and not only for the next 15-20 years but probably forever.

If we now manage to get a strong data protection law in the EU, US companies will have to learn to deal with it and will have far less problems with data protection consumer rights in the US as well.

A strong data protection law builds the basis for fighting all other laws that endanger freedom and privacy. Be it SOPA, PIPA, CETA, ACTA or TPP like treaties, be it CISPA and cybercrime laws, be it a PATRIOT act, forward data retention, 6 strikes, you name it. A strong data protection law is the basis to fight all these Very Bad Things(tm) and if we don't get the momentum in the civil society to stand up now and fight for the right for privacy, all will be lost.

Europeans: keep wirting your MEPs within the next two months. Call them and send them FAX letters. Make sure they know that civil society will rise if they screw it up, like we did with ACTA.

Here you can phone your MEPs for free! [memopol.lqdn.fr] Prepare yourself to go onto the streets again.

Time schedule:

  • 20. February 2013: Vote in ITRE
  • 21. Februar 2013: Vote in EMPL [memopol.lqdn.fr]
  • 18. - 19. MÃrz 2013: Vote in JURI [memopol.lqdn.fr]
  • 24. - 25. April 2013: Vote in LIBE [memopol.lqdn.fr]

Re:Act NOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42965009)

If only this was the biggest problem with the EU. But it's so much more, it needs to be abolished at it's core like Napoleon did with the Holy Roman Empire, signing petitions isn't going to do jack against these turbo-bureaucrats.

Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42965605)

Maybe this will sound paranoid, maybe just cynical. I can't really tell where my views sit on the various lines of misery anymore.

It's simple, though: They've fallen to the same thing that the US politicos did, money. Either they're getting money directly (lobbying, bribes) or indirectly (political or industry influence), for themselves or perhaps maybe, for a rare few, in the misguided belief that this will go to their constituents.

It boils down to greed, though. Screw gravity, EM, and weak/strong forces... the most powerful force on this planet is plain old greed.

Pathetic ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42966423)

"The definition of personal data has also been narrowed to exclude 'pseudonymous data' and suggested safeguards were ignored. This is risky because such data can easily be associated to individuals," she continued.

This amendment seems similar to a Yahoo position document, leaked on Wednesday, in which the U.S. tech giant recommends supplementing "the definition of personal data in the draft regulation by adding a distinct subset of data considered pseudonymous, which will trigger differential obligations."

Meanwhile a new website, LobbyPlag.eu, compares amendments put forward by MEPs with the text submitted by lobbyists for Amazon, eBay and the American Chamber of Commerce. Civil liberties activists are angry that European parliamentarians seem to have copied many amendments from these submissions.

So we're letting the companies who have most of our personal information rewrite the rules on how it's treated.

This is the fox guarding the hen house, and giving those entities any say into the law makes it toothless.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What a joke -- welcome to the oligarchy kids, because we're stuck with it.

It's their consituency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42967189)

It has always been their constituency (big business, with big banks at the top).
If you think we, the people, are their constituency, you are living in a fairy-tale.

The EU exists to be corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42968937)

The EU parliament is in Belgium. This is no coincidence. Belgium is the most corrupt nation on the planet, and no-one even notices or cares. It was Belgium, NOT Germany that was the responsible for the worst West European created Holocaust of the 20th Century- the genocide in the Congo. Unluckily, the victims had a 'black' skin, so supporters of Israel have no problem telling us this Holocaust doesn't matter, and that Belgium is a 'great' nation.

The EU parliament is about unaccountability, boosted by the fact that most EU politicians are far away from their electors, and participate in actions that barely receive any coverage in the home press. The perks, salaries, expenses and pensions paid to EU politicians are the best on the planet. And even if an EU politician can't resist crudely grabbing more cash via illegal means, the penalties for malfeasance are minor if applied at all.

The EU was the brain-child of Hitler's puppet masters- a 'United States of Europe' with a greater Germany at the head (you do know the so-called Holy Roman Empire- the continuance of Ancient Rome- was 'Germanic' for much of its significant later period). Britain was supposed to be semi-pseudo independent (in the eyes of its idiot population) and France was supposed to soak up the financial benefits.

The EU allows, by law, for unlimited immigration, allowing 'difficult' national populations (like in France and Britain) to be swamped by socially destructive outsiders from the EU equivalent of 3rd World nations. Massive increases in crime rates and massive pressure on the social infrastructure of the target nation allows the election of 'extremist' politicians (the ultra-right wing LibCon alliance in the UK for instance) who push through police-state policies designed to suppress political movements arising from the bottom-up. Any protestor in the UK, for instance, can have their home raided and all their electrical goods confiscated. A conviction in court is unlikely, but that isn't the purpose of the police boot in the face.

It should be noted that the EU parliament ONLY has power when doing the bidding of the rulers of the UK, France, Italy and Germany. If it runs contrary to these wishes in some way, it is over-ruled by ministers from these nations. It is nothing more than the same trick you see with the United Nations- the UN being nothing but a crime syndicate for the China-France-UK-Russia-USA mafia families. The UN actually cheers war crimes, so long as the criminal party has the explicit support of at least one of these 'families', particularly of course the USA.

So the EU parliament caves in to nothing. That concept doesn't even make sense. When the EU 'passes' evil laws, this is a direct consequence of the wishes of the rulers of Europe- people like Tony Blair whose puppets current infest Westminster.

Only way to fix this is catch them one at a (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42970423)

Time and burn them at the stake.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>