my country's government (EU-based) uses GDPR in order to hide corrupt state employees from public scrutiny. last time it was used to hide identities of local police who were caught on tape causing grievous bodily harm to protesters. the state refused to name the culprits due to GDPR.

the same GDPR is also currently used to turn people away from hospitals, as those require tens of pages of signatures in order for them to be able to treat you.

does it matter to the state that they're abusing gdpr? to the contrary. they've just found another toy to fuck us over. meanwhile I'm not only abused by the state, but a bunch of US-based websites basically cut off europe from the rest of the world.

in the end all I can say is that while I support the principle behind most EU ideas, the actual law that gets adopted is usually a far cry from what it should have been. also, this sort of naivety when it comes to the state power is still mind boggling. if you think google is bad, you have no idea.

I wouldn't want my government to release the names of state employees, corrupt or not, to the people - especially if those people can become the target of mob justice.

Of course, they should still be brought to trail or whatever when they are corrupt, but if that doesn't happen, then that is the problem - not that they're not being exposed to public rule.

>especially if those people can become the target of mob justice.

Well at some point that becomes the only form of justice available. If the state is protecting bad actors what form of justice is left?

Correct; if the state can no longer democratically be controlled by citizens, revolution is the only option.

However, when the state is protecting bad actors, one should not call for the law to be adjusted to allow for mob justice, but for a functioning judiciary branch.

Thank you.

Well the EU was originally supposed to be a club of like minded elites. Now countries like Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg share the EU with Bulgaria.

Now if the EU was just an economic Union like the old EEC this wouldn't be a problem but we are long past that. This was all foreseen by the way but it was expected that the new member states would be uplifted like Spain and Portugal where in the 1970s.

The problem is that the only way a lot of these EU regulations can get through is by general directive: the intents and goals are agreed upon as a group, the implementation is left to the individual state. You can imagine how impossible it would be to get all European countries to agree on anything otherwise. On top of that, a lot of these rules do really need to be adapted to local national contexts to makes sense.

However, that also leaves plenty of room for exploitation, like the stuff you mentioned. I'm sorry to hear the GDPR is being abused this way.

Perhaps if it's hard to get agreement that's a good thing? Then only things that are truly agreed to would happen at the EU level. That seems like a feature of the system, not a bug.

It is a feature of the system, and arguably a bug in human society

The GDPR was implemented as a Regulation, not as a Directive, which means it wasn't adapted; the original text was directly applied to every EU nation.

Of course, there's still the problem between the law and its enforcement. But that's often a problem even inside a single country.

Why does your country's government need the GDPR? Why couldn't they just pass their own law to do that?