All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, and there are uses and then there are exceptional uses.

So everybody should become a journalist now.

I have a blog. If I write a non-fiction post can I be classified as journalist for the purposes of this regulation?

There needs to be definition of "exceptional". Most "exceptional" use exemptions rapidly become routine...

Indeed. It is a clear blanket clause. Nothing changes, but at least they (EP) tried. I am increasingly starting to think that the Council is the root of most problems in the EU.

> they (EP) tried

The EP didn't do anything yet, right now as far as I can tell the only concrete document we have is the initial commission draft proposal

> starting to think that the Council is the root of most problems in the EU

Starting? (semi-/s)

I stand corrected: I haven't followed the EFMA proposal in detail, so I thought it was already in trilogues.

As for the Council: if they really are going to open up the treaties, everyone should be up to arms against the non-democratic practices and grey areas.

There isn't really anything non-democratic about the council to be honest. Not in a manner that would be fixable by treaty

The issue is mostly one of awareness, if people cared about the Council there'd be political interest for other politicians to keep ministers more accountable. As is no one even knows what the Council is and who is on it. No national politician is going to waste political capital on council oversight

The main issue with the Council of ministers is that it's a legislative body made up of executive branch actors, I don't like that on a philosophical level. Would be much better if they were replaced by national legislature delegates. Same voting system, same competencies and powers, just 1-2 hundred members instead of 27+1

Good that you brought this argument. It is a very thorny issue; we are talking about the equality of states versus the equality of citizens.

I for one support the supranational democracy element and not the intergovernmental one. For all things related to civil rights, including privacy and other things, the good things have always come from the supranational level, whereas the intergovernmental arrangement has always watered things down (or worse). The rot traces to the Lisbon Treaty.

It is a schizophrenic system: high-level politicians (ministers) are deciding things at the EU-level (such as building an "ECHOLON" like someone noted below) and then coming back to their national constituencies saying that "Brussels did it".

And their COREPER henchman ;-) Those invisible relics from the coal and steel union are invisible for the electorate and don't represent the member states but rather the government of the member-states, thus is a minority wiping out a majority. All the while they do policy laundry on a EU echelon without anyone batting a eye.

Yeah. The "very democratic" bodies like CIVCOM and INTCEN surely never yield any power over these "exceptional use case" clauses.

The self-proclaimed guardians of freedom and democracy, ladies and gentlemen.

Just click accept, everything will be ok.

If I understand correctly, the proposed act restricts the use of spyware, and apparently some actors want to keep some loopholes.

The title reads like the EU wants to allow uses of spyware that were not allowed before, but I cannot infer that from the very limited information given in this article.

How about laws for mandating spyware on our elected politicians?

> How about laws for mandating spyware on our elected politicians?

What ? Hell, no. They are human beings and have a right to privacy. /s

I don't think its particularly reasonable to expect "emergency powers" to be anything other than nigh blanket authorization because, well, in such a situation they'll do it anyway and this is at least honest about it.

"Oh shit a journalist is leaking our military's <sensitive data> which might actually affect the war -- track them down, you have full operational discretion."

No government official is even going to consider the minutia of the law before issuing an order.

They tracked journalists before even without the excuse of a war. Nothing will stop them now.

I am not sure whether this example is a good one. While you can probably do interception and the like in a moment's notice, planting an implant is a different thing. As zero-click exploits are still rare, you need a spear phishing or the like, meaning that a person is already likely under surveillance.

Typical european discourse. No concern about spyware as such, about end-to-end encryption, but we want some special carve out for journalists.

Why is it okay to spy on and send malware to regular citizens but not journalists? That makes zero sense to me.

Because journalists are the defenders of democracy. /s