The GDPR explicitly allows for government surveillance to be excluded from the directive's protection.
Privacy International and a bunch of other NGOs have filed complaints[2] against "Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K." for violating rulings by the European Court of Justice over illegal mass surveillance. Here's another article[3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/06/25/eu-na... [3]: https://medium.com/privacy-international/a-new-era-of-mass-s...
Or it can shoot up a pre-school.
Only one of these things actually happens outside of adolescent power fantasies.
There are counter examples to every case, but my point was the Australian government can do what it wants because it's populous let's them.
Who we are contemporary with are the parents of a lot of dead kids; maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm.
But keep on living in the past. If events like Sandy Hooks can't change your collective opinion, I doubt that anything will. It's all on your hands, you proud all-american weekend warriors.
I think you misunderstand. I'm asking you to imagine, or in other words, pretend for the sake of argument, that you lived at that time, and then ask yourself whether you'd join the loyalists in calling for the colonists to be disarmed. Does that make sense? If you cannot understand why many Americans are unwilling to discard a right that was fundamental to the very existence of their nation, then you'll never be able to debate this topic productively.
> maybe you should explain to them the necessity of guns to protect them from harm.
Certainly, just as I have (gently) tried to convince people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving or alcoholism that criminalizing alcohol would not be a moral response to their loss. Would you disagree? Keep in mind that alcohol kills tens of thousands of people every year, including thousands of children killed by alcohol-impaired drivers. Is this also a problem that needs to be solved by criminalizing all alcohol? If not, what's the difference in your opinion?
Alcohol hasn't been criminalized, but it has been regulated.
Regulation, in Australia's case at least, works. We went from several large public shootings, to next to none. We currently have more guns than when regulation was brought in [0], but by preventing those who too unstable from gaining access, we've prevented many attacks on the public.
Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access. And when they find a way to recover in those areas of concern, access is available.
[0] https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia...
Yes, and that clearly isn't enough. That's my whole point. Alcohol is still killing tens of thousands of people. Way more than firearms do (apart from war).
> Regulation isn't a ban. It isn't suppressing a right. It's protecting the populace from those who bring harm, and themselves would be harmed, by access.
No kidding. You seem to assume that you're arguing with absolutist libertarian gun-nuts here. I'm all in favor of sensible regulation. I'm merely pushing back a bit on craigsmansion's brainless knee-jerk "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex, which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol.
We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast.
> which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol
Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?"
> "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex
That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.
> "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap.
This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest.
> Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation.
I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment?
The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.
Make no mistake, with the rise of ML governments will be able to crush social movements in the nascent stage before they become too big to stop. People will be arrested for thought crimes because they posted the wrong thing on the wrong website. And currently a large number of people would cheer because the people getting arrested are on the "other" side of the political spectrum. Be careful what you wish for