As I remember at the moment partly Von Der Leyen, the current Commission president. She is a German Christian democrat and apparently bit with capital C. Meaning she has bit of a moral panic streak on her of the “won’t you think of the children” variety. As I understand this current proposal is very much driven by her.
However her driving it doesn’t mean it sail through to pass as legislation. Some whole memberstate governments are against the encryption busting idea.
Also I would add, not like this is unanimously supported in EU among memberstates. So this isn’t a done deal, this is a legislative proposal. Ofcourse everyone should activate and campaign on this, but its not like this is “Privacy activists vs all of EU and all the member state governments” situation. Some official government positions on this one are “this should not pass like it is, breaking the encryption is bad idea”.
Wouldn’t be first time EU commission proposal falls. Plus as you said ECJ would most likely rule it as being against the Charter of Rights of European Union as too wide breach of right to privacy.
No, terrorism act being ruled out means police doesn’t have evidence or even suspect a terrorism motive. There is no separate “terrorism” singular statute for violent crimes. Rather Finland handles this by having qualifier for list of crimes of “crime act done in terroristic intent”. One of these is explosives crimes. Illegal possession and so on. Then going to stuff like “murder with terroristic intent” and so on. Only real pure terrorism crimes are stuff like “leading a terrorist group”, “training for terroristic group” and so on organizational crimes.
What specifying in article means is police has told they have no indication of terroristic purpose/motive and thus the investigation will start regarding just “plain” explosives crimes, instead of starting investigation on “explosives crimes with terroristic intent”. Basically initial show doesn’t show anything related to terrorism. The amount of explosives is itself irrelevant. Since the whole thing about the Finnish terrorism statute is about the motive and purpose, not the means.
You could blow some single person with a whole metric ton of explosives and not be charged with terrorism. If you did it for say as crime of passion since they were having an affair with your spouse, that isn’t a terroristic murder with explosives. It’s just plain murder for personal reasons, just way over the top amount of explosives. You probably would get charged with public endangerment againt since that is awful big explosion and so on. However again… you didn’t endanger public for terroristic purposes so no terroristic crime label. You did it rather out of not caring/stupidity and so on.
Also I would point out as result of couple big European wars and having a pretty sizeable mining industry, even large amount of explosives might be accessible to certain people. Which is why on the other hand authorities really take dim view on explosives crimes. He might not be suspected of terrorism, but I would think the person will get book thrown at them (as much as anyone gets book thrown at them in Finland) to make example. Prosecutor will must likely seek maximum jail sentence for that kind of pile of illegal explosives (whatever they were before, they certainly are illegal upon being put upon some randos car boot, which is not a legal way to store 12 kg of dynamite). Probably aggravated explosives crime at that again given it’s 12 kg of dynamite. You can make awful big crater with that amount.
Also I would at while police is at the moment ruling out terrorism, it isn’t a court judgement. They are allowed to change their mind, should they find evidence making them suspect terroristic purpose. It has happened before. For example the last right wing terrorism case actually started like that. They found a stash of firearms and explosives. However first those were being suspected to be tied to drugs crimes and were found related to a drug bust investigation. So the investigation didn’t start as terroristic. However after couple home searches related to that investigation were done, police found evidence suggesting terroristic purpose. This lead to the crimes classification changing to firearms crimes and explosives crimes to firearms crimes with terroristic intent and explosives crimes with terroristic intent. Plus on top as I remember preparing a terroristic act and so on. They were caught before they actually carried out an strike with their stash.
Russia still get to maintain their main embassy at capital Helsinki. Just as Finland still has it’s main Moscow embassy.
Though as cheaper preventative would be just electrolyte sports drink. Meant for same thing just for sports caused sweating. However sweating is sweating.
Main thing is one can buy electrolyte sports drink by big drink mix powder jar, instead of expensive single pack.
One just has to be carefull to buy the actual rehydration drink mix instead of the normal sports drink. The normal sports drink isn’t as optimal as thirst killer, since container alottaa of calories. It does also usually contain rehydration sales, but as said heck of energy bomb to be drink by bottle full outside of hard exercising. Where is pure rehydration drink has just set of salts and then maybe some flavoring and food color (because obviously sports drink is supposed to be acid green)
Ofcourse most likely not exactingly proportioned and controlled as actual ORS from pharmacy, since ORS would be done to medicine production standards.
For some crazy reason they haven’t snatched it up yet. Atleast a domain seller website is saying it is free for pickings, if you want it.
Then again maybe their policy is to put everything as subdomain on cnn.com and make cnn.com their sole brand “if it’s not on cnn.com, it’s not that CNN”. Still i would have though they defensive register all relevant TLDs, even if they never ever use them.
Well it was mostly humoristic comment. Couldn’t help myself with the picture perfect “10 things you need to know” template. Since as every knows, one should comment without reading the article. That is what all the cool kids do these days.
Hmmm… I shall go now read it, since you said it is interesting read.
Edit: you were right, it was interesting read. Shall press that up arrow there.
Technique 1, click baity titles like “10 things you absolutely need to know about x”
It will at minimum be a fight. It won’t just sail through. Also whole governments being against means one of them might challenge the law in to European Court of Justice. Since as nation-states also often have, EU itself has charter of rights part in the fundamental EU treaties. It also has normal limit and share of powers. EU Council and Parliament aren’t all powerfull. ECJ can rule a directive or regulation to be against the core treaties like Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Said charter does include in it right to privacy (which explicitly mentions right to privacy in ones communications) and protection of personal data. Obviously none of these are absolute, but it means such wide tampering as making encryption illegal might very well be deemed to wide a breach of right to private communications.
Oh and those who might worry they wouldn’t dare at ECJ… ECJ has twice struck down the data protection agreement negotiated by EU with USA over “USA privacy laws are simply incompatible, no good enough assurances can be given by USA as long as USA has as powerful spying power laws as it has”. Each time against great consternation and frankly humiliating black eye to the Commission at the time.
ECJ doesn’t mess around and doesn’t really care their ruling being mighty politically inconvenient and/or expensive to EU or it’s memberstates. They are also known for their stance that privacy is a corner stone civil right (as stated in the charter and human rights conventions also, their legal basis) and take it very seriously as key part of democracy and protection of democracy. Without free and private communications and expression there can be no free political discussion, without free political discussion there can be no democracy.