In the section for 'Schengen Border Checks', under the image of the Russian passport, there is a picture of a scowling Gérard Depardieu[1], which is a thinly veiled attempt at a display of mirth and disdain in equal parts,
by the Directorate General of EU Commission - Migration and Home Affairs.
Although, his body of work and extracurricular activities could provide a further source of fodder for ridicule. However, it reveals the general message from EU after this vote i.e. we don't care if you object and irrespective of your views, this project is going ahead [2].
"We don't care if you object and irrespective of your views, this project is going ahead."
The EU seems to have done this for at least twenty-five years, the prime example being their stubborn insistence on monetary union despite the mountains of expert opinion saying that monetary union made no sense economically.
And those experts were pretty much on point. I doubt the EU will survive long with its attitude. I wouldn't mind, since something new is preferable to this.
You could also say that monetary union between the US states makes no sense economically. The point is that the people decided to have a political union and to belong to the same country, the USA. Monetary union follows.
The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work.
It's crucial to have the economics work but economics does not control culture and politics, it's the other way round.
> The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work.
Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on states that currently have stronger economies in the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-say...
> every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population
That it was "rejected by the population" is a dishonest characterization. Referendums in Luxembourg and Spain were successful. Elected representatives in 16 other EU countries voted in favor of the Constitution. Yes, it was rejected by voters France and the Netherlands, and that killed the treaty, because establishing a Constitution requires unanimous support.
So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that.
[1] Anytime there's a characterization in the form of "the people" (or "the American people") it's dishonest and inaccurate, because the "people" of any large enough group hold diverse-enough opinions that you simply cannot characterize them with a broad brush. (Unless of course, you conduct referendum in which the question is affirmed unanimously by everyone in the group with a 100% quorum. Which gets quickly almost-impossible as the group's size increases.)
> So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that.
Uhm sorry no. Read the links. It was rejected by the majority of the voters both in France and the Netherlands.
What happened afterwards in France was to change it slightly and make it pass by parliamentary vote instead.
About the accuracy of the term "the population", I simply mean it "by the local rules for a nation wide referendum".
I meant a minority of the European people/countries. Whether you count by population, or by the number of countries.
(a) By number of states: 18 approved it, 2 rejected it, and the rest canceled/dropped efforts as it was effectively a failure (at that point).
(b) By population: Let's add together the populations of the 18 countries that approved of it, and the 2 that rejected it. I'm confident the total population of the 18 europhiles exceeds that of the 2 naysayers.
We don't know how things would have fared in the rest of the EU (that dropped/canceled referendums or legislative votes on this), but of those 20 countries, a majority of both people and countries were for the EU Constitution.
The big mistake the EU made was assuming: (i) that monetary union would foster political union, and (ii) the people of Europe actually wanted political union in the first place. I don't think either are true.
I think we more or less agree with each other, by the way. It's important that the political situation matches the economic situation. I just don't think you can use the economics to force the politics, if you see what I mean?
The fact is that the monetary union has brought closer political integration and will continue to do so because, again, that's the only way.
I think you're trying to ascribe more meaning to whatever book you've dropped the title of that it might have... (I haven't read that book but the author seems serious enough not to ignore facts)
I may be mistaken but it looks like you haven’t read the book but you’re confident in assuming I’ve somehow misunderstood it!
Here’s the relevant quote in full:
“British economist Nicholas Kaldor had warned as early as March 1971 that the fiscal governance system would deepen political divisions. In November 1997, Milton Friedman predicted that the euro’s flawed economics would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks ... into divisive political issues.” The Europeans had it backward, Friedman concluded: “Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary union imposed under unfavourable circumstances will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.””
I'm stating facts. You're trying to find more and more random quotes in an attempt to prove your point... But you haven't found one yet.
Last time: The monetary union has led to closer political union and that can only continue.
Downvoting all of someone else's comments in a thread is immature and certainly rather poor when you're claiming to be running an educational website...
The Trumps and Farages of this world think that by repeating it again and again it will make it "seem more likely". But to me it seems more likely they will pass sooner than the Euro.
The reality is that France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc are not going back.
I don't see the point of disdain, Depardieu is a relatively well known Russian citizen and also a French public figure, so if you want someone from outside of the EU visa agreements, perhaps it's a good example of an individual like that?
In addition, there's substantial pressure from member states to secure the border, and make it as efficient as possible. The governments of Italy and Hungary have practically been screaming about border protection issues. It's not only limited to governments, many national and EP parties have publicly expressed the same viewpoint.
I also don't like these systems because of privacy concerns. But suggesting that it's disdainful or undemocratic, it is not. The democratic process is being followed.
Perhaps you're seeing something that is not there, or you just really dislike the EU institutions for some reason.
>I don't see the point of disdain, Depardieu is a relatively well known Russian citizen and also a French public figure so if you want someone from outside of the EU visa agreements, perhaps it's a good example of an individual like that?
He famously gave up his French passport [1]. The official document features his picture issued via a legitimate Department/Executive agency [2]. If I didn't know any better, that looks like a meme!
You are implying that a department which is responsible for implementing the most wide-ranging project and whose sole remit is based around taxonomy of biometrics, has a totally legitimate right to use an image of any person in official documents, in order to promote certain values of it's member states and thereby circumventing it's own laws and directives like Art.17?
Actually, I’m not implying that. What I’m implying is that this department uses images of public figures for them to give good examples of individuals. As said in my previous comment, Depardieu is a well known public figure, and he allows the use of his images in other public places, so his use in government documents is justified.
Trump is on there as well. Do you also want to complain about his depiction?
They also use Donald Trump as an example. I suspect this presentation was done mainly to explain the plan to politicians finding the whole topic technical and boring and therefore they tried to entertain them a bit.
Yet another step to make things more straightforwardly hackable for interested actors.
Sorry for the cynicism, but I can't help thinking that all this digitalization and automation is just plain blessing for foreign intel agencies, if not the main goal.
I doubt that it is a goal to make it easier for foreign intel agencies to get this data. But I also strongly doubt that they are capable of preventing it ...
Isn't it an Overton conveyor belt at this point? The kind of you see on airports, for moving people. No matter which side you start on, in the end, you'll be pushed over there.
I don't think it's possible to make a 100% secure complex system. You have a lot of moving parts, from OSS vulnerabilities to proprietary S vulnerabilities to hardware issues to social engineering to DevOps mistakes to intellectual laziness etc. With 0.01% chance millions of Europeans data will be stolen.
I wonder how is this different than the US's system where even as a tourist I have to give them my biometrics so they can store it in their big database.
If you are foreign to the US and want to get in you need to accept their conditions that they deem needed for your entry. Even though is a questionable practice, you are doing something (provide biometrics) in order to get something else (access to a foreign country)
The point here is that you are a CITIZEN of the EU, you need to subject to conditions that give you no benefit when traveling abroad.
> "The systems covered by the new rules would include the Schengen Information System, Eurodac, the Visa Information System (VIS) and three new systems: the European Criminal Records System for Third Country Nationals (ECRIS-TCN), the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS),"
It looks like those are all travel-related systems rather than national identity systems?
You already need to submit biometric data in order to get a passport. That's how they get these data in the first place.
In EU countries that have ID cards you also already need to submit biometric data when applying for one.
This only merges existing databases, which is a reasonable thing to do when you have a single border (Schengen area) and obviously want to quickly check anyone.
It's different because the EU is not a country. It's composed of countries which should have sovereignty over the data of their citizens. But now they'll have to give our biometrics away. Doesn't matter what individual countries say; this is the EU and there is no discussion to be had.
EU is composed of member states just like United States is composed of "united" states. The citizens of EU have equal rights.
There is hope the EU member states will get united one day as well but we are not there yet. Some want to have the cake and eat it too(i.e intelligence sharing but no data sharing, sovereignty and equal rights as well).
Currently the trend is to blame EU for anything like the EU would be an institution lead by states outside of the EU.
Is it though? My reading of Brave New World was that it was at least consensual. I’m after reading Seveneves and I see some parrallels between these societies. In context it really doesnt seem so much sinister as a way for humanity to survive. 1984 was despotic.
I don't think there was much of a difference. Effectively BNW=1984+drugs, but because there are no such drugs, 1984 is the only implementable option, pseudo-BNW is unsustainable, doesn't solve their problems and so is just a detour, because they couldn't go 1984 directly due to technical problems.
ISTM the advertising, entertainment and social-media industries are aiming to fulfil much of the role of BNW's drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies can probably cover most of the gaps.
I don’t belive 1984 is sustainable either. Its too rigid to withstand external events. BNW on the other hand, has tacot consent of all involved and is self reinforcing.
Both are similar in premise: the proletariat is distracted and kept down by something. Think of the sort of content that is produced in 1984; in Brave New World it is simply drugs instead. It makes you wonder about the spread of video games, instantly accessible entertainment, increased drug use, etc.
It was consensual because the populace was bred and genetically altered to conform to their roles in society. I think that is an important distinction.
Have you read "Brave New World"? Genetically engineered people, sorted into categories of capabilities, with all their needs for happiness provided, including recreational drugs.
I haven't, and it's not the 1st time someone names that book to me, so I have to read it one day.
The big problem though will be getting back to narrative; there has been a moment in my life when I got immersed into technical manuals, whether for work or personal projects, and from that moment I stopped completely to read novels: I still have that half read book by Gregory Benford with the bookmark set where I stopped; after that I didn't read a single novel in almost two decades although I was an avid (mostly sci-fi) reader. I don't have an answer for this, it just happened. I hope time will change this.
So today, even if we haven't gone far down the genetic engineering path yet, we do have the tools for massive-scale social engineering. I wonder which will prove the more critical enabling factor for our very own dystopia?
The breeding and sorting is largely redundant given that Humans follow a capability bell curve naturally. Singapore, China try their best to tease apart that curve as accurately as possible. So does Israel (everyone takes an Intelligence test at 18 and this factors into which University classes you can attend, the Army unit you get assigned to and if you receive unsolicited Job offers by Intelligence Agencies (Mossad, Shabak))
I'd probably not want the results to be put into a central database, but I think this testing may a be a good idea in general if the only person that knows is the test taker.
A lot of people have no idea what to do as a career, so both an IQ and a Big Five test may allow people to know more about themselves. I know Myers-Briggs is unscientific, but something like it could also help in determining good career paths.
Have one test towards the end of elementary school and another at the end of secondary. (People can of course take them more often if they wish.)
It's an extension of the Schengen Information System (SIS)[1], which every country, which is a member of the Schengen accord, maintains.
I am not going to give the EU biometrical data, even if that means skipping some "services".
That may mean that you're not travelling into the EU at all. What is so different towards having to supply my fingerprints, when travelling to the US (or Malaysia, or Japan for that matter)?
Quote:
"The type of data about people kept in SIS includes (...)"
So it is not a complete list, and the listed entries are just an excerpt:
- requests for extradition
- undesirability of presence in particular territory
- minor age
- mental illnesses (!!!)
- missing person status
- a need for protection
- requests by a judicial authority
- and suspected of crime.
The SIS also keeps data referring to lost, stolen and misappropriated
I find the entry re mental illnesses very peculiar. I am curious how the total data structure looks like.
Not sure how it is in the US, but it seems that there is a right of access for each EU citizien to the SIS database[1], e.g. in Germany, citizens have a direct right of access by contacting
I have ADHD and it is flagged in the system. How do I know? When I tried to exchange my driver license, it was flagged and the “local DMV” forwarded the application to the police department. I then had to present evidence to the police I was capable of driving, thankfully I’ve never been fined and my psychiatrist didn’t have a problem signing a document stating I am capable of driving (even though he himself never measured that skill specifically). At the end of one year long back and forth with the police dept, I got a 2 year provisional DL. Not sure if they will ever grant me a regular DL though.
Thank you for sharing. That makes sense from a regulatory point of view - on the other hand, it is deeply concerning from the point of view of society (especially when it comes to other diseases that may have an influence on driving ability e.g. phychosis).
As always, there is a trade-off in technology application.
It isn't used entirely for bad purposes. I know that the most frequent use of medical info in the SIS is that police officers who arrested someone can check if they need a doctor to administer or prescribe medication or if they need to keep something in mind when handling the person. (ie is this person aggressive because of a mental illness or due to being an ass? do they require heart medication, etc.)
This is one of those issues that always stands out to me when people discuss "mental illness" and the government. Usually its in the context of firearms, but clearly thats not always the case. It makes it difficult to trust any system of flagging "mental illness" won't be full of false positives, and limit the liberty of perfectly healthy people. Regardless, thank you for sharing.
Good luck with that! For instance "New EU regulations for transaction authentication which go into effect next year are expected by Mastercard to significantly increase the use of biometrics for purchases". You can be sure that eventually no one will have a choice if they want to lead any kind of normal life. Obligatory capturing of biometric data at many airports is just getting going.
For the ex-USSR - the Soviet Republic, this vision of the future would have been a dream come true.
It is still possible to hold an EU passport which does not contain any biometric data, even though it's getting harder and harder and I suspect the still available loopholes will be eliminated pretty soon.
For example I live in an Eastern-European country that is also an EU member and I hold a passport which does not have any incorporated biometric data in it, but that only happens because I specifically chose a temporary (meaning one-year) passport instead of the normal 5-year or 10-year passports, the latter requiring you giving your biometric info away. As I was saying, I suspect this loophole will be closed pretty soon.
...you do realize that "biometric info" is the most easily accessible / stealable type of information. Anyone can grab your biometric infos easily if you become a person of interest, so it's hard to think of what you're practically gaining.
It's like Americans with their SSNs, this kind of information is practically public (ignoring legalese and crap), so trying to keep it away from a big database will only work up to a point. In a way things like the Equifax hack are a good thing because now anyone's SSN can be assumed public.
Sure, if you fancy a career in intelligence or as an undercover something, it would be a valuable personal asset to have "biometrics not recorded in databases X, Y and Z". But it only works until you're caught/recorded the first time. And if you're either "interesting enough" or a public person, anyone caring to track you surely already has your biometric infos.
(Otoh, assuming anyone managing that big EU db will be grossly incompetent is probably realistic :P)
> Sure, if you fancy a career in intelligence or as an undercover something
Well, if you plan a career undercover, you will want you biometrics recorded everywhere linked to alternative identities. The lack of biometric record is going raise more flags than Generic Joe passing through. This move of centralising biometric database is going to seriously reduce your number of available alternative personas.
No having your biometric stored is a loudable goal and should be seen as a form of protest. Like people living off the grid.
Unfortunately, as noble parent intention are, they are aligned with the much more pragmatic intentions of criminals, which means that, indeed, it will be harder and harder to achieve it and even when he succeed, he will make his profile light up like a Christmas tree in all the system when he tries to lead a normal life.
Wow, besides the possible expense, having a one year passport must be a pain. It's essentially valid for 6 months less the time of your trip since most places require six months validity beyond your departure from their jurisdiction. It's like you almost have to apply for a new passport for each trip! Also having a one year total duration is sure to attract attention from foreign authorities, they'll assume you're restricted for some reason. Telling them that you got it to avoid being fingerprinted is not going to please them.
If you want true misery, try getting flagged by the UK, EU or US and enjoy up getting detained for hours (in a holding cell) each time you try to cross their border.
Yeah, I've travelled to Turkey pretty soon after I had it issued, in fact that was the main reason of me getting a passport and yes, I did sort of use it as a one-time thingie. It sure adds some extra costs (in real money and in opportunity costs) but I'm willing to eat them up, for the moment.
> is sure to attract attention from foreign authorities, they'll assume you're restricted for some reason. Telling them that you got it to avoid being fingerprinted is not going to please them.
That's one extra reason not to travel to countries that treat tourists/foreign people like crap.
I have, it was no issue. Also, you can get it within the hour. But it is expensive and you will get some weird looks. I haven't tried going the US with it.
Even if the US does accept the passport without a problem, it will still fingerprint and photograph almost every visitor whether or not the passport contains those biometrics. Canadian short-term visitors, and of course US citizens/nationals, are the main exception.
In 2020 the EES system comes into full effect this would require all Schengen entry documents including the 90 and 180 day visas to be backed by biometrics.
No, I am not. The US implementing "security" is a embarrassing failure in my opinion. They even created a whole new pointless agency. Probably didn't have enough already...
My national ID is valid for 10 years from now and does not use any biometrics. It was optional, but if I had chosen to add biometric information, it would just be on a relatively insecure device but not in any database. That is a huge difference. Not that I would accept either. So the problem is postponed at least.
It will be inconvenient, but managable. Even if credit card usage will be more difficult, but there are alternatives.
I fully acknowledge to be the weird dude paying the car in cash.
The article links to a design document that clearly states that this is a new system. Modern journalism still way better than some random guy commenting on HN. qed
No, this is not "just" a merger! Prior to this latest crap, the databases were separate, including separate access controls, on a "need to know" basis.
Now a shitload of agencies and their agents across the EU, including in untrustworthy countries like Poland, Hungary and Austria, can access all the sensitive data in one place.
At least these three countries do not have right-wing extremists and authoritarians in government. I admit that we're not perfect, 13% support for right-wingers is 13% too much and our secret services are also plagued with scandals at the moment, but still: not remotely comparable with what is going on in HU/AT/IT/PL.
It is plain stupid and negligent to give biometrical data to the German government. Your argument about the prevalence of bad guys in parliament is devoid of any reasonable conclusion in either direction. And certainly not sufficient for a general case for laws of this kind, as it lacks even a minimal justification for implementing surveillance on this scale.
But you obviously don't see right-wing parties as a threat, since they would get access to that data too. Although I would admit that they probably wouldn't accomplish anything that a Seehofer could do as well.
> It is plain stupid and negligent to give biometrical data to the German government.
Really? Germany requires all citizens to have a biometric ID card. The ID cards were introduced separately in East and West Germany decades before reunification. What makes you think this is “stupid and negligent” when it’s been around for so long? I’d expect any social/political/legal bugs to have been solved by now.
> Germany requires all citizens to have a biometric ID card
Partially true for your picture, that is restricted to the ID itself. And that is a relatively recent addition. You can still get an ID with "imperfect" biometric photo, which you provide yourself. Biometric photo is defined by some rudimentary rules (you are not allowed to use a picture of the back of your head) that isn't comparable to fingerprints in any way.
> I’d expect any social/political/legal bugs to have been solved by now.
Fair. I suppose I expect important problems to be tested automatically by reality, but I don’t really know how Common Law systems handle that, and I’m completely unfamiliar with Civil Law systems.
Well, I doubt there are fundamental differences, but a lawyer might disagree. I believe any form of law system needs to reflect our intuitive fairness or it will fail at some point. It is of course imperfect, like any crafted law, but fundamental for the acceptance of the judiciary. If the law is applied with help of precedents or text doesn't matter that much in the end.
But besides the point, requiring every citizen to be able to ID himself with biometric data is the bug, not a solution to anything.
Something national socialists knew very well. Although technologically restricted, there are unmissable parallels to legislation like this. This is legislation crafted from fear and opportunism. Not a single problem will be solved.
>At least these three countries do not have right-wing extremists and authoritarians in government.
Why are you using such inflammatory language? Is it because these countries dared to defy their great German overlords?
You mention right wing extremists but then later talk about right wingers. This is like saying that communists are in power and pointing towards statistics about left wing liberals.
Furthermore, Germany is and has been more authoritarian than any of those countries for a long time. In Germany you need to buy a license just to livestream online to more than 500 people (or needed?). Germany's also the country where home-schooling is illegal and you can't take your kid out of school even for a couple of hours without permission from the principal (often a government employee). As far as personal freedom goes, you probably still have more of it in the abovementioned countries compared to Germany.
Why not? The FPÖ (AT) is right-wing extremist. The Fidesz (HU) got suspended from the EVP for leaving the path of democracy. Salvini (IT) regularly uses right-wing talking points and incites hatred. PiS (PL) is under fire from the EU Commission which has sued the Polish government due to them dismantling the court system.
> Furthermore, Germany is and has been more authoritarian than any of those countries for a long time. In Germany you need to buy a license just to livestream online to more than 500 people (or needed?).
LOL, are you serious? I agree that this regulation is utter crap, but that is not authoritarian. We still have an independent court and police system - PL/HU have not.
> Germany's also the country where home-schooling is illegal and you can't take your kid out of school even for a couple of hours without permission from the principal (often a government employee).
Home schooling is illegal for very valid reasons. At least our kids (mostly) get vaccinated and don't get screwed out of their future by parents who think it's sane to keep them from anything outside and replace that with evangelical indoctrination.
First of all, extremism means that their politics falls outside of what society finds normal. Since you're talking about the ruling parties of multiple countries, that were democratically elected, then by definition they cannot be extremists.
>The Fidesz (HU) got suspended from the EVP for leaving the path of democracy.
They were suspended because of anti-immigration billboards that featured Juncker (a member of EPP himself):
>The decision was made partly in reaction to the outrage caused by the Hungarian government's recent anti-migration billboard campaign featuring Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, a senior member of the EPP.
And how is this bad? I call bs on the "regularly incites hatred" part.
>PiS (PL) is under fire from the EU Commission which has sued the Polish government due to them dismantling the court system.
The EU Commission is suing Poland because they introduced a law which lowers the retirement age of supreme court judges from 70 to 65.
>I agree that this regulation is utter crap, but that is not authoritarian.
Setting up rules that tell you how you must live your life is authoritarian. The government banning homeschooling and you needing permission from the government to take your kid out of school for the day are instances of authoritarianism. There are many of these small things that add up. I wouldn't consider any of these countries to be authoritarian, but some are more than others. Germany seems to love to regulate everything.
Simple: Poland and Hungary are under multiple investigations for turning their systems to "illiberal democracies". Austria is on the list because their right-wing party FPÖ is in control of the security agencies (both police and secret service and military), which has led other EU countries to restrict information exchange with their secret services (https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/spionage-...).
For what it's worth I'd also put Italy on the list, with the open fascist Salvini as Interior Minister they're also not a stellar light of democracy any more.
Solid explanation, and even if I feel that including Austria on the list feels a bit OTT, you've linked to a credible news-source showing that it's a valid concern among intelligence agencies. Shame on anyone downloading your comment.
I feel the need to defend "illiberal democracies" once again: They didn't implement this shit. They would certainly like to, but they are not the problem. The current problem is the EU as an institution that implements policies based on fear. Not some fringe parties with limited success...
You just don't point the finger on someone incontinent while your pants are soaked. Totally not classy.
Without the EU council - the assembly of the countries - saying yes there's no new law in the EU. Therefore, saying they didn't implement this shit is wrong. If they didn't want to, they could have stopped it. They also still can stop it if they want to. The vote of the parliament is not the last step. The council has to agree.
Apart from that most of the legislation that the commission initiates is done because the EU council asked the commission for it. So, the countries asked for this in the first place.
Austria has a draft law that would require real names for online comments. The right wingers (FPÖ) lost the election but the centre right (ÖVP) pretty much borrowed from their program. And they'd be stupid not to, because they nearly lost the first time, before the right wingers asked to repeat the elections.
The question is not whether Governments should have this information - that horse has left the barn. The question now is what they should be allowed to do with it.
Not surprising. Many European nations and their citizens are extremely jealous of the success of US companies (how many big, famous and innovative brands from the past 3 decades have come out of Europe? Let's name a few. [crickets] Exactly)
Don't worry though, their excellent PR and damage control team will be out shortly to commence the circlejerk on how much the EU actually cares about privacy and that everybody is for privacy there, while US=Spying evil no privacy land forever.
I see a lot of concerns here about the obvious security and privacy issues that a database like this would create.
I share those concerns, but there is one other issue that I don't see mentioned here.
These sorts of government IT projects are always plagued with delays and tremendous budget overruns. It wouldn't surprise me if this takes at least 10 years and a billion euro to complete, if it isn't cancelled before that.
> The European Parliament voted last week to interconnect a series of border-control, migration, and law enforcement systems into a gigantic, biometrics-tracking, searchable database of EU and non-EU citizens.
Understood - but most EU states would have a national ID card which would make them ‘known’ to their own government. Not sure if all include biometrics (I know that the ID cards here in France are not all like that, though passports today are) but national ID cards cover all adults and children. Just seems weird that they would not include a couple of hundred million people that they definitely know something about by virtue of their citizenship of an EU country.
In Netherlands they make a copy of your fingerprint for your ID card (EU-wide) or passport. The copy of that fingerprint is deleted after it's stored electronically on your ID card or passport.
There's no need to store a copy of e.g. the fingerprint anywhere else. Just sign the electronic data on the ID card/passport.
Everyone here seems to assume that having biometric data on the passport means that there's a database somewhere, while that isn't needed.
You must apply in person for a new passport and your picture and finger prints are captured and integrated into the passport.
Fingerprints, however, are stored in a central database. This was (and is) extremely controversial and the official reasoning was verification in case a passport needs to be replaced.
At least in Sweden very few people use national id-cards. Most people have ones issued by banks. A lot of people became painfully aware of this when they were refused re-entry into the country with their other ID-cards when border checks towards Denmark were implemented, since it's common to commute to Copenhagen.
Interesting fact. I thought that having an ID card is pretty much mandatory in whole EU. In Slovakia you get one at age of 15 (I think) and it has biometric data - picture and fingerprints. You are not required by law to carry it with you, but it can cause delays if need to be verified by police or other authority. It’s also used to login into e-gov services with a card reader and your pin - but it’s quite limited at this point.
We had them after WWII until sometime in the 50's when they were removed due to abuse by the authorities. Hence there is still a distrust of them. The scheme recently introduced and then scrapped could have had some interesting consequences.
This is part of why we have such "fun" with the free movement provisions, in that we do not have a population register. Nor a requirement to keep the authorities notified of where we live.
Hence unlike the other EU countries, we can not enforce the 90 day limit on EU folks being here without means to support themselves.
I think it was when the wartime id cards where up for renewal the civil service wanted it - but parliament thought it smacked to much of "Gestapo" as Churchill put it.
It was killed by a Motorist refusing to present an ID card to the police, and the resultant court case. That is what lead to Parliament being "forced" to scrap them.
FYI, any non-British citizens living in the UK (excepting EU for now) are being forced towards getting Biometric Residence Permits with any visas/renewals... a plastic card containing photos/biometrics and a big ID number on it. And biometrics are collected every time you cross the border.
Yes, that has been going on for a little while now. It started with refugees having to have such, and is getting rolled out wider now.
It is rather a pointless exercise, since people can slip past the border, and once within the country there is no need to carry or produce ID. So as long as one avoids interactions with the authorities, one will not be tracked.
About all it will do is allow a count to be kept of the number of law abiding (non EEA & non Swiss) foreigners within the country.
If Brexit ever does occur, it may then also include the EEA countries and Switzerland (depending upon what reciprocal travel arrangements develop), but would not include the Irish.
As far as I know, the only countries where you are obliged to carry your ID are Portugal and the Netherlands. In Germany you are required to possess one but not to carry it with you, except in special cases (fields of work known for a high percantage of illegal workers, people carrying weapons, police men). If you do not posses a valid ID, you will be fined up to 3000€. But do note that you are required to identify yourself to the police or other official institutions and if you are unable to they might escort you home to present your id or to the police office to identify you there.
In the Nordic countries, ID isn't mandatory, and apart from a few border crossings between Denmark and Sweden, there are no border controls either. Apart from the aforementioned border controls, citizens of other Nordic countries aren't required to carry a passport or a national ID card, but should carry some kind of identification on them.
In practice, that means you just carry your regular driver's license in your wallet when crossing the border.
I hear there's a similar setup in the Benelux countries, so ID is definitely not mandatory in the entire EU.
You are very much required to carry a national ID card (or passport) when travelling to other Nordic countries.
Now, there aren't any checks except for the border into Sweden from Denmark, but if there is a check you are not allowed to travel using an ID or driver's license. Driver's licences, ID cards issued by banks or tax offices are not valid for travel within schengen even though you are generally able to move between the countries anyway.
The misconception you present is the reason Swedes with driver's licences and normal ID cards got stranded in Denmark.
Misconception? The Nordic Passport Union is still quite valid. Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Within the Nordic area, any Nordic identity documentation (e.g. a driving license) is valid as proof of identity for Nordic citizens because of the Nordic Passport Union, while a national identity card or a passport is can be required in other Schengen countries"
In other words, you need to be able to identify yourself, but not necessarily with a national ID or a passport as you would when entering other parts of the Schengen area.
The border controls between Denmark and Sweden are a temporary suspension of those rules but it only concerns people crossing the border at those points -- not people who who are already in the country or people who cross the borders at other locations, like say, the Finnish/Swedish border.
Definitely not the case in the UK - in fact there was quite fuss made when there was a plan a few years back to introduce ID cards.
Mind you I suspect mostly people do carry 'official' identification documents on them most of the time (e.g. driving licenses) but there is no requirement to actually have these on you at all times.
Mine was issued by Skatterverket which is the tax agency, no? Surely that's "Government issued ID".
In fact, I had to give them my fingerprint and iris scan when I got my card.
(Although I have been denied entry when coming back from Copenhagen with it; "It is not a travel document" was the reasoning which is completely against the Schengen agreement.)
Cards from Skatteverket are not valid for travel abroad. They are not national IDs, though one would assume that to be the case.
> Om du inte har ett pass går det bra med ett nationellt ID-kort. På det nationella ID-kortet framgår vilken nationalitet man har. ID-kort som utfärdats av Skatteverket eller en bank är inte ett nationellt ID-kort eftersom det inte framgår vilken nationalitet man har - det framgår endast vilket land som kortet är utfärdat i och räknas därmed inte som giltig legitimation.
I was rather shocked when I tried to get across from Copenhagen to Malmö with a Finnish national ID card, only to discover it wasn't valid valid for entering Sweden. Luckily they saw reason and let me through after a while but it must be horrible for the daily commuters.
When I lived in Copenhagen a few years back the commuters numbered in the 10000's. I can imagine that number has gone down a lot recently.
You were without a question dealing with an incompetent border officer in that case. Finnish ID card issued to a Finnish national is a valid travel document to all EU countries, to all Nordic countries, and to Switzerland. Additionally, for the citizens of all Nordic countries, no official travel documents are required to other Nordic countries in the first place. There is only a requirement to "be able to prove your identity on request" - for which a driver's license would usually suffice.
It is a bit more amusing than that, sort of a Catch 22 situation.
In neither Ireland nor the UK, nor for travel between them (except by 'plane) is one required to have or produce ID.
What one has to do (if asked, and then a right asserted) is establish one's right to enter the country. The easiest way to do that is via a Passport.
One can still travel (by boat) between the two countries w/o a passport, you just have to be prepared (if challenged) to argue and maybe waste some time.
Driving a vehicle in the the UK (and I assume in Ireland) is a situation where one can be required to produce ID (even then you do not have to carry it), but not in normal day to day life.
Does your regular ID state your citizenship? Good, then you can travel. If it doesn't, you aren't proving that you are a citizen with the right to travel freely in schengen.
I had a similar situation last November, when an over-eager Lufthansa check-in officer denied boarding the plane because I was using a Finnish national ID card. I was travelling from Finland to Croatia and the explanation was that Croatia had enabled passport checks on border and ID card is no passport.
No amount of explanation helped. I did have my passport with me and I showed it to this lady. Rest of the trip I used only the ID card.
Common theme seems to be, at least in Finland, that dealing with public agencies and authorities is just fine, but you can get to a trouble with private companies.
Underrated criticism. The EU currently isn't going in the direction of a borderless union. 15 years ago, I would have thought that a sad development. Currently not so sure anymore. Legislation from EU bodies has been abysmal the last 10 years, not only relating digital spaces.
I would formalize it differently. Borders are established by a society of people who live in it. Historically, often based on racial, linguisitic or cultural differences.
There is no right to any outsider to declare himself member of a society (just think of your book reading club). It is the right of the society to define the rationale for its membership.
Is it unfair to many people to live in worse conditions: yes. Does it change anything of the above: no. Does it change the right of the society to deny entry: no. And for the hard individual cases, there is the Human rights declaration which for example the EU has put into law.
well first of all i think you are equating society and territory, but even so, a society/territory is not akin to a book club. if there is only one club, that you are born into, does that analogy still make sense?
if "outsiders" have no right to declare themselves members of a society -- by what principle does the society earn this right?
it seems that this principle is merely the georgraphy beneath your feet when you were born. i can think of many alternative "rationales for membership" that are much less trivial. remember modern states were born out of "patriotism". i think that is still what defends them. the insider/outsider distinction is precisely the problem.
You are right about the territory. I had a paragraph about it but deleted it :). Territory is a tricky aspect. Over time, territory changes its value. The Inka territory/society in Middle America were once the peak of evolution. Now the territory/society is not that interesting anymore. Same story for the territories we nowadays know as Egypt, Iraq or Syria. After the Oil you can count Saudi Arabia to it. The UK was much more interesting 100 years ago.
Territory is indeed a factor. But one which is volatile as an aspect how well a society develops on it.
And regards being born in a society: There is nothing stronger than the bound of a family. Why we are surprised that the societies select this as a primary membership rule. And this is universal like that in every spot of the world.
It's an absurd law that's a prime example of how incompetence at a regulative level leads to a negative outcome in a specific sector. I 100% agree with that, but I fail to see how it can be compared to your other two examples. Cookie law doesn't affect your privacy in any way (and certainly not for the worse), it just gives you annoyances you have to deal with.
Basically the majority of laws are now written by the EU. Welcome to democracy 2.0, where the campaign slogans for the EU parliament elections are something along the lines of
- "We love Europe... "
- "If you love peace then you should love Europe..."
- "Isn't Europe great... "
- "We should make Europe even better ... "
basically content free.
and then there are the right wing nationalists, which are equally deluded.
After the 80's terrorism in the EU basically died off, with some exceptions like North Ireland which lasted a bit longer.
Then came the EU, Merkel and Co and look it it now. After crackdowns on cash and crypto, the next Big Brother pet project is biometrics. What a globalist shithole!
Although, his body of work and extracurricular activities could provide a further source of fodder for ridicule. However, it reveals the general message from EU after this vote i.e. we don't care if you object and irrespective of your views, this project is going ahead [2].
[1] https://www.securityresearch-cou.eu/sites/default/files/02.R...
[2] https://www.gemalto.com/govt/coesys/eborder/entry-exit-syste...
The EU seems to have done this for at least twenty-five years, the prime example being their stubborn insistence on monetary union despite the mountains of expert opinion saying that monetary union made no sense economically.
You could also say that monetary union between the US states makes no sense economically. The point is that the people decided to have a political union and to belong to the same country, the USA. Monetary union follows.
The aim is to have a federal union in Europe. In a way, going straight to monetary union is to 'force' further political union because they know full well that it requires it in order to work.
It's crucial to have the economics work but economics does not control culture and politics, it's the other way round.
Sorry, but I disagree. There is no consensus whatsoever in the EU about a federal Union. There is not even consensus on a budgetary union (as in shared debt, not just having a shared currency) because it will reflect badly on states that currently have stronger economies in the EU: https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lithuania/merkel-say...
Actually, to be fair, every time there was a popular referendum even the EU Constitution has been rejected by the population (it only passed later by the parliament): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...
They know and knew that monetary union can only lead to further political union.
The main issue, or the benefit, is that it requires all countries to have a good governance. It will force Greece and friends to finally be serious.
That it was "rejected by the population" is a dishonest characterization. Referendums in Luxembourg and Spain were successful. Elected representatives in 16 other EU countries voted in favor of the Constitution. Yes, it was rejected by voters France and the Netherlands, and that killed the treaty, because establishing a Constitution requires unanimous support.
So, no, it wasn't rejected by "the population" (a term that it was always be inaccurate[1]). It was rejected by a minority. And the treaty being one that requires unanimous approval, failed because of that.
This Wikipedia page shows the full picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
[1] Anytime there's a characterization in the form of "the people" (or "the American people") it's dishonest and inaccurate, because the "people" of any large enough group hold diverse-enough opinions that you simply cannot characterize them with a broad brush. (Unless of course, you conduct referendum in which the question is affirmed unanimously by everyone in the group with a 100% quorum. Which gets quickly almost-impossible as the group's size increases.)
Uhm sorry no. Read the links. It was rejected by the majority of the voters both in France and the Netherlands.
What happened afterwards in France was to change it slightly and make it pass by parliamentary vote instead.
About the accuracy of the term "the population", I simply mean it "by the local rules for a nation wide referendum".
(a) By number of states: 18 approved it, 2 rejected it, and the rest canceled/dropped efforts as it was effectively a failure (at that point).
(b) By population: Let's add together the populations of the 18 countries that approved of it, and the 2 that rejected it. I'm confident the total population of the 18 europhiles exceeds that of the 2 naysayers.
We don't know how things would have fared in the rest of the EU (that dropped/canceled referendums or legislative votes on this), but of those 20 countries, a majority of both people and countries were for the EU Constitution.
I think we more or less agree with each other, by the way. It's important that the political situation matches the economic situation. I just don't think you can use the economics to force the politics, if you see what I mean?
I think you're trying to ascribe more meaning to whatever book you've dropped the title of that it might have... (I haven't read that book but the author seems serious enough not to ignore facts)
Here’s the relevant quote in full:
“British economist Nicholas Kaldor had warned as early as March 1971 that the fiscal governance system would deepen political divisions. In November 1997, Milton Friedman predicted that the euro’s flawed economics would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks ... into divisive political issues.” The Europeans had it backward, Friedman concluded: “Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary union imposed under unfavourable circumstances will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.””
Last time: The monetary union has led to closer political union and that can only continue.
Downvoting all of someone else's comments in a thread is immature and certainly rather poor when you're claiming to be running an educational website...
p.s. I don't actually have the ability to downvote comments, so that'll be someone else who's doing that.
there's another alternative: the entire thing self-destructs
which seems more likely at this point than full fiscal and political union
The reality is that France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc are not going back.
In addition, there's substantial pressure from member states to secure the border, and make it as efficient as possible. The governments of Italy and Hungary have practically been screaming about border protection issues. It's not only limited to governments, many national and EP parties have publicly expressed the same viewpoint.
I also don't like these systems because of privacy concerns. But suggesting that it's disdainful or undemocratic, it is not. The democratic process is being followed. Perhaps you're seeing something that is not there, or you just really dislike the EU institutions for some reason.
He famously gave up his French passport [1]. The official document features his picture issued via a legitimate Department/Executive agency [2]. If I didn't know any better, that looks like a meme!
You are implying that a department which is responsible for implementing the most wide-ranging project and whose sole remit is based around taxonomy of biometrics, has a totally legitimate right to use an image of any person in official documents, in order to promote certain values of it's member states and thereby circumventing it's own laws and directives like Art.17?
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20750593
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/migration-and-home-aff...
Trump is on there as well. Do you also want to complain about his depiction?
D Trump is used generically, it is not asscociated either to a nationality or a figure. NO photograph is provided.
Edit: There is a thumbnail of Donald Trump. However, same principle applies.
This is under a section where they explain how they link your face biometrics into a universal database after taking your fingerprints. Wow.
Sorry for the cynicism, but I can't help thinking that all this digitalization and automation is just plain blessing for foreign intel agencies, if not the main goal.
I believe the gp meant it's the goal of foreign intel agencies to encourage worldwide digitization/automation of everything (not the goal of the EU).
The point here is that you are a CITIZEN of the EU, you need to subject to conditions that give you no benefit when traveling abroad.
It looks like those are all travel-related systems rather than national identity systems?
(e.g. the UK operates SIS: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/border... while not being either a member of Schengen or having a national identity system?)
This only merges existing databases, which is a reasonable thing to do when you have a single border (Schengen area) and obviously want to quickly check anyone.
So I'm not defending the EU, but the US is already doing exactly this.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...
Don't show your boaording pass -> gate opens anyway -> WTF?! -> tweets ensue: https://twitter.com/mackenzief/status/1118509708673998848
Except, AFAICT, Canadians. (Unless you want to sign up for Nexus.)
There is hope the EU member states will get united one day as well but we are not there yet. Some want to have the cake and eat it too(i.e intelligence sharing but no data sharing, sovereignty and equal rights as well).
Currently the trend is to blame EU for anything like the EU would be an institution lead by states outside of the EU.
For those who might not get the reference: https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
ISTM the advertising, entertainment and social-media industries are aiming to fulfil much of the role of BNW's drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies can probably cover most of the gaps.
It doesn't need totalitarian gov. at all.
Artificially and massively genetically engineered and bred into categories, not sorted. It's an important distinction.
A lot of people have no idea what to do as a career, so both an IQ and a Big Five test may allow people to know more about themselves. I know Myers-Briggs is unscientific, but something like it could also help in determining good career paths.
Have one test towards the end of elementary school and another at the end of secondary. (People can of course take them more often if they wish.)
Edit: I would also guess it is incompatible with recently introduced legislation.
I am not going to give the EU biometrical data, even if that means skipping some "services".
That may mean that you're not travelling into the EU at all. What is so different towards having to supply my fingerprints, when travelling to the US (or Malaysia, or Japan for that matter)?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System
Quote: "The type of data about people kept in SIS includes (...)" So it is not a complete list, and the listed entries are just an excerpt:
The SIS also keeps data referring to lost, stolen and misappropriated I find the entry re mental illnesses very peculiar. I am curious how the total data structure looks like.Not sure how it is in the US, but it seems that there is a right of access for each EU citizien to the SIS database[1], e.g. in Germany, citizens have a direct right of access by contacting
Bundeskriminalamt–SIRENE Büro –D –65173 WiesbadenTel.: ++611 551 65 11Fax: ++611 551 65 31E-mail: sirenedeutschland@bka.bund.de
[1] https://www.dvi.gov.lv/lv/wp-content/uploads/datu-aizsardz/p...
I have ADHD and it is flagged in the system. How do I know? When I tried to exchange my driver license, it was flagged and the “local DMV” forwarded the application to the police department. I then had to present evidence to the police I was capable of driving, thankfully I’ve never been fined and my psychiatrist didn’t have a problem signing a document stating I am capable of driving (even though he himself never measured that skill specifically). At the end of one year long back and forth with the police dept, I got a 2 year provisional DL. Not sure if they will ever grant me a regular DL though.
As always, there is a trade-off in technology application.
Needless to say that this connection (if you even are prescribed such meds) is complete and utter bullshit.
It also doesn't help to de-stigmatize mental illness in society.
Thanks for sharing.
I sort of understand their view but the lack of medication or proper diagnose can also be linked to accidents, we just don’t have any data either way.
For the ex-USSR - the Soviet Republic, this vision of the future would have been a dream come true.
Do you feel more comfortable giving the same information to the US?
For example I live in an Eastern-European country that is also an EU member and I hold a passport which does not have any incorporated biometric data in it, but that only happens because I specifically chose a temporary (meaning one-year) passport instead of the normal 5-year or 10-year passports, the latter requiring you giving your biometric info away. As I was saying, I suspect this loophole will be closed pretty soon.
...you do realize that "biometric info" is the most easily accessible / stealable type of information. Anyone can grab your biometric infos easily if you become a person of interest, so it's hard to think of what you're practically gaining.
It's like Americans with their SSNs, this kind of information is practically public (ignoring legalese and crap), so trying to keep it away from a big database will only work up to a point. In a way things like the Equifax hack are a good thing because now anyone's SSN can be assumed public.
Sure, if you fancy a career in intelligence or as an undercover something, it would be a valuable personal asset to have "biometrics not recorded in databases X, Y and Z". But it only works until you're caught/recorded the first time. And if you're either "interesting enough" or a public person, anyone caring to track you surely already has your biometric infos.
(Otoh, assuming anyone managing that big EU db will be grossly incompetent is probably realistic :P)
Well, if you plan a career undercover, you will want you biometrics recorded everywhere linked to alternative identities. The lack of biometric record is going raise more flags than Generic Joe passing through. This move of centralising biometric database is going to seriously reduce your number of available alternative personas.
No having your biometric stored is a loudable goal and should be seen as a form of protest. Like people living off the grid.
Unfortunately, as noble parent intention are, they are aligned with the much more pragmatic intentions of criminals, which means that, indeed, it will be harder and harder to achieve it and even when he succeed, he will make his profile light up like a Christmas tree in all the system when he tries to lead a normal life.
If you want true misery, try getting flagged by the UK, EU or US and enjoy up getting detained for hours (in a holding cell) each time you try to cross their border.
Have you actually travelled on such a passport?
Yeah, I've travelled to Turkey pretty soon after I had it issued, in fact that was the main reason of me getting a passport and yes, I did sort of use it as a one-time thingie. It sure adds some extra costs (in real money and in opportunity costs) but I'm willing to eat them up, for the moment.
> is sure to attract attention from foreign authorities, they'll assume you're restricted for some reason. Telling them that you got it to avoid being fingerprinted is not going to please them.
That's one extra reason not to travel to countries that treat tourists/foreign people like crap.
In my experience, unless you go thru an automated system when passing thru immigration, chances are you will be treated arbitrarily (crap).
Source: non white man living and traveling within Scandinavia always randomly selected for additional questions.
My national ID is valid for 10 years from now and does not use any biometrics. It was optional, but if I had chosen to add biometric information, it would just be on a relatively insecure device but not in any database. That is a huge difference. Not that I would accept either. So the problem is postponed at least.
It will be inconvenient, but managable. Even if credit card usage will be more difficult, but there are alternatives.
I fully acknowledge to be the weird dude paying the car in cash.
so technically you are both right. Also having it centralized allows for new features(fast cross-country lookups for example)
Now a shitload of agencies and their agents across the EU, including in untrustworthy countries like Poland, Hungary and Austria, can access all the sensitive data in one place.
This is NOT good.
This has nothing to do with Brexit.
That will (almost certainly) end if Brexit occcurs.
But you obviously don't see right-wing parties as a threat, since they would get access to that data too. Although I would admit that they probably wouldn't accomplish anything that a Seehofer could do as well.
Really? Germany requires all citizens to have a biometric ID card. The ID cards were introduced separately in East and West Germany decades before reunification. What makes you think this is “stupid and negligent” when it’s been around for so long? I’d expect any social/political/legal bugs to have been solved by now.
Partially true for your picture, that is restricted to the ID itself. And that is a relatively recent addition. You can still get an ID with "imperfect" biometric photo, which you provide yourself. Biometric photo is defined by some rudimentary rules (you are not allowed to use a picture of the back of your head) that isn't comparable to fingerprints in any way.
> I’d expect any social/political/legal bugs to have been solved by now.
heh, have you written a test?
Fair. I suppose I expect important problems to be tested automatically by reality, but I don’t really know how Common Law systems handle that, and I’m completely unfamiliar with Civil Law systems.
But besides the point, requiring every citizen to be able to ID himself with biometric data is the bug, not a solution to anything.
Something national socialists knew very well. Although technologically restricted, there are unmissable parallels to legislation like this. This is legislation crafted from fear and opportunism. Not a single problem will be solved.
No, they have jihadists and an authoritarian government.
Why are you using such inflammatory language? Is it because these countries dared to defy their great German overlords?
You mention right wing extremists but then later talk about right wingers. This is like saying that communists are in power and pointing towards statistics about left wing liberals.
Furthermore, Germany is and has been more authoritarian than any of those countries for a long time. In Germany you need to buy a license just to livestream online to more than 500 people (or needed?). Germany's also the country where home-schooling is illegal and you can't take your kid out of school even for a couple of hours without permission from the principal (often a government employee). As far as personal freedom goes, you probably still have more of it in the abovementioned countries compared to Germany.
Why not? The FPÖ (AT) is right-wing extremist. The Fidesz (HU) got suspended from the EVP for leaving the path of democracy. Salvini (IT) regularly uses right-wing talking points and incites hatred. PiS (PL) is under fire from the EU Commission which has sued the Polish government due to them dismantling the court system.
> Furthermore, Germany is and has been more authoritarian than any of those countries for a long time. In Germany you need to buy a license just to livestream online to more than 500 people (or needed?).
LOL, are you serious? I agree that this regulation is utter crap, but that is not authoritarian. We still have an independent court and police system - PL/HU have not.
> Germany's also the country where home-schooling is illegal and you can't take your kid out of school even for a couple of hours without permission from the principal (often a government employee).
Home schooling is illegal for very valid reasons. At least our kids (mostly) get vaccinated and don't get screwed out of their future by parents who think it's sane to keep them from anything outside and replace that with evangelical indoctrination.
First of all, extremism means that their politics falls outside of what society finds normal. Since you're talking about the ruling parties of multiple countries, that were democratically elected, then by definition they cannot be extremists.
>The Fidesz (HU) got suspended from the EVP for leaving the path of democracy.
They were suspended because of anti-immigration billboards that featured Juncker (a member of EPP himself):
>The decision was made partly in reaction to the outrage caused by the Hungarian government's recent anti-migration billboard campaign featuring Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, a senior member of the EPP.
Source: Politico
https://www.politico.eu/article/fidesz-meps-remain-in-the-ep...
>Salvini (IT) regularly uses right-wing talking points
And how is this bad? I call bs on the "regularly incites hatred" part.
>PiS (PL) is under fire from the EU Commission which has sued the Polish government due to them dismantling the court system.
The EU Commission is suing Poland because they introduced a law which lowers the retirement age of supreme court judges from 70 to 65.
>I agree that this regulation is utter crap, but that is not authoritarian.
Setting up rules that tell you how you must live your life is authoritarian. The government banning homeschooling and you needing permission from the government to take your kid out of school for the day are instances of authoritarianism. There are many of these small things that add up. I wouldn't consider any of these countries to be authoritarian, but some are more than others. Germany seems to love to regulate everything.
And not being able to home school kids is a great thing, don't understand how it's even a thing in other countries.
For what it's worth I'd also put Italy on the list, with the open fascist Salvini as Interior Minister they're also not a stellar light of democracy any more.
let me guess: German?
You just don't point the finger on someone incontinent while your pants are soaked. Totally not classy.
Without the EU council - the assembly of the countries - saying yes there's no new law in the EU. Therefore, saying they didn't implement this shit is wrong. If they didn't want to, they could have stopped it. They also still can stop it if they want to. The vote of the parliament is not the last step. The council has to agree.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and...
Apart from that most of the legislation that the commission initiates is done because the EU council asked the commission for it. So, the countries asked for this in the first place.
edit: ... and legislative process.
Just today, for a JetBlue flight in the US: https://twitter.com/TallGlassofStyL/status/11199746416054599...
The question is not whether Governments should have this information - that horse has left the barn. The question now is what they should be allowed to do with it.
Don't worry though, their excellent PR and damage control team will be out shortly to commence the circlejerk on how much the EU actually cares about privacy and that everybody is for privacy there, while US=Spying evil no privacy land forever.
I share those concerns, but there is one other issue that I don't see mentioned here.
These sorts of government IT projects are always plagued with delays and tremendous budget overruns. It wouldn't surprise me if this takes at least 10 years and a billion euro to complete, if it isn't cancelled before that.
It is only people already known to the EU.
There's no need to store a copy of e.g. the fingerprint anywhere else. Just sign the electronic data on the ID card/passport.
Everyone here seems to assume that having biometric data on the passport means that there's a database somewhere, while that isn't needed.
Do you have hard proof for that deletion step?
You must apply in person for a new passport and your picture and finger prints are captured and integrated into the passport.
Fingerprints, however, are stored in a central database. This was (and is) extremely controversial and the official reasoning was verification in case a passport needs to be replaced.
Most Swedes do have passports though.
We had them after WWII until sometime in the 50's when they were removed due to abuse by the authorities. Hence there is still a distrust of them. The scheme recently introduced and then scrapped could have had some interesting consequences.
This is part of why we have such "fun" with the free movement provisions, in that we do not have a population register. Nor a requirement to keep the authorities notified of where we live.
Hence unlike the other EU countries, we can not enforce the 90 day limit on EU folks being here without means to support themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3129302.stm
a bit more detail here:
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/identit...
It is rather a pointless exercise, since people can slip past the border, and once within the country there is no need to carry or produce ID. So as long as one avoids interactions with the authorities, one will not be tracked.
About all it will do is allow a count to be kept of the number of law abiding (non EEA & non Swiss) foreigners within the country.
If Brexit ever does occur, it may then also include the EEA countries and Switzerland (depending upon what reciprocal travel arrangements develop), but would not include the Irish.
Any idea what the punishment is for not carrying?
In practice, that means you just carry your regular driver's license in your wallet when crossing the border.
I hear there's a similar setup in the Benelux countries, so ID is definitely not mandatory in the entire EU.
Now, there aren't any checks except for the border into Sweden from Denmark, but if there is a check you are not allowed to travel using an ID or driver's license. Driver's licences, ID cards issued by banks or tax offices are not valid for travel within schengen even though you are generally able to move between the countries anyway.
The misconception you present is the reason Swedes with driver's licences and normal ID cards got stranded in Denmark.
"Within the Nordic area, any Nordic identity documentation (e.g. a driving license) is valid as proof of identity for Nordic citizens because of the Nordic Passport Union, while a national identity card or a passport is can be required in other Schengen countries"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Passport_Union
In other words, you need to be able to identify yourself, but not necessarily with a national ID or a passport as you would when entering other parts of the Schengen area.
The border controls between Denmark and Sweden are a temporary suspension of those rules but it only concerns people crossing the border at those points -- not people who who are already in the country or people who cross the borders at other locations, like say, the Finnish/Swedish border.
Mind you I suspect mostly people do carry 'official' identification documents on them most of the time (e.g. driving licenses) but there is no requirement to actually have these on you at all times.
"if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear / if you've something to hide, you shouldn't even be here"
Mine was issued by Skatterverket which is the tax agency, no? Surely that's "Government issued ID".
In fact, I had to give them my fingerprint and iris scan when I got my card.
(Although I have been denied entry when coming back from Copenhagen with it; "It is not a travel document" was the reasoning which is completely against the Schengen agreement.)
> Om du inte har ett pass går det bra med ett nationellt ID-kort. På det nationella ID-kortet framgår vilken nationalitet man har. ID-kort som utfärdats av Skatteverket eller en bank är inte ett nationellt ID-kort eftersom det inte framgår vilken nationalitet man har - det framgår endast vilket land som kortet är utfärdat i och räknas därmed inte som giltig legitimation.
https://www.oresunddirekt.se/nyheter/graenskontroll-vid-inre...
When I lived in Copenhagen a few years back the commuters numbered in the 10000's. I can imagine that number has gone down a lot recently.
See: https://www.poliisi.fi/identity_card/use_of_the_identity_car...
This is how travel works right now between the UK and Ireland, hence why it's such a big pain point in regards to Brexit.
In neither Ireland nor the UK, nor for travel between them (except by 'plane) is one required to have or produce ID.
What one has to do (if asked, and then a right asserted) is establish one's right to enter the country. The easiest way to do that is via a Passport.
One can still travel (by boat) between the two countries w/o a passport, you just have to be prepared (if challenged) to argue and maybe waste some time.
Driving a vehicle in the the UK (and I assume in Ireland) is a situation where one can be required to produce ID (even then you do not have to carry it), but not in normal day to day life.
But yes, I kinda expected a regular ID would be enough, just as it has been in the past.
Does your regular ID state your citizenship? Good, then you can travel. If it doesn't, you aren't proving that you are a citizen with the right to travel freely in schengen.
No amount of explanation helped. I did have my passport with me and I showed it to this lady. Rest of the trip I used only the ID card.
Common theme seems to be, at least in Finland, that dealing with public agencies and authorities is just fine, but you can get to a trouble with private companies.
Only companies are fined for breaking the regulation.
It doesn't mean that there can't be national legislation that does something similar "for fighting crime" though.
it's fine if my country has certain policies that are different than your country.
BUT LET INDIVIDUALS DECIDE WHICH SIDE THEY WANT TO BE ON. NOBODY CHOSE WHERE TO BE BORN
There is no right to any outsider to declare himself member of a society (just think of your book reading club). It is the right of the society to define the rationale for its membership.
Is it unfair to many people to live in worse conditions: yes. Does it change anything of the above: no. Does it change the right of the society to deny entry: no. And for the hard individual cases, there is the Human rights declaration which for example the EU has put into law.
if "outsiders" have no right to declare themselves members of a society -- by what principle does the society earn this right?
it seems that this principle is merely the georgraphy beneath your feet when you were born. i can think of many alternative "rationales for membership" that are much less trivial. remember modern states were born out of "patriotism". i think that is still what defends them. the insider/outsider distinction is precisely the problem.
Territory is indeed a factor. But one which is volatile as an aspect how well a society develops on it.
And regards being born in a society: There is nothing stronger than the bound of a family. Why we are surprised that the societies select this as a primary membership rule. And this is universal like that in every spot of the world.
Who are driving these motions?
It's an absurd law that's a prime example of how incompetence at a regulative level leads to a negative outcome in a specific sector. I 100% agree with that, but I fail to see how it can be compared to your other two examples. Cookie law doesn't affect your privacy in any way (and certainly not for the worse), it just gives you annoyances you have to deal with.
Just wait till the chatter about a combined EU army crops up again...
- "We love Europe... " - "If you love peace then you should love Europe..." - "Isn't Europe great... " - "We should make Europe even better ... " basically content free.
and then there are the right wing nationalists, which are equally deluded.
Then came the EU, Merkel and Co and look it it now. After crackdowns on cash and crypto, the next Big Brother pet project is biometrics. What a globalist shithole!
</s>
</s>
Certainly not a European government. And definitely not around middle of 20th century.