Agreed. Legislation should be clearly within the consitition, beyond any doubt. Back and forth with the constitutional tribunal pushes the boundaries of the constitution, and risks the tribunal conceding.
In addition, the tribunal many times can't enforce violations of the spirit of the constitution, only blatant concrete breaches.
And remember, the constitution was an agreement signed by many groups, and every single clause of it represents the result of negotiations and struggles.
Changing the constitution means overriding that consensus.
They are kind of useful to levy billions of dollars from a handful of US companies. Laws are absurd, over complicated, and unevenly applied, but at least they finance the Brussels bureaucracy.
I wonder if the Catholic Church applies the laws of data protection. If they retain or delete the records of the approximately 80% of baptized population.
Privacy Shield died because the US explicitly believes in citizen rights, not human rights:
> Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.
It's easy to be cynical and blame the EU for being bureaucratic, but in this case the EU is actually doing its job: protecting its citizens from the abuses of foreign governments who won't grant us equal human rights.
The big question is what's the origin of these laws, given that people add little value themselves, as expressed by their own choices, to privacy and conservative data management?
I wonder if the EU citizens have special needs virtually every other citizen in the world doesn't have?
Or is the EU trying to establish a power position versus american companies?
I wish we asked the citizens, who do you want to trust your data to, Google, or the government?
Q: "Do you wish to exercise your right to be forgotten, in your relation with the government?"
A: "Yes, I don't want the government to know who I am"
> I wonder if the EU citizens have special needs virtually every other citizen in the world doesn't have?
The EU believes that privacy is a human right that everyone should have, GDPR is just the law the helps to ensure that right is upheld. It provides a framework for companies and governments to process data in way that ensures that a person right to privacy is respected.
> I wish we asked the citizens, who do you want to trust your data to, Google, or the government?
What has this got to do with anything? GDPR applies equally to governments and companies. State governments and institutions in the EU have been sued on a number of occasions for violating GDPR.
> Q: "Do you wish to exercise your right to be forgotten, in your relation with the government?"
>
> A: "Yes, I don't want the government to know who I am"
GDPR does not provide a universal right to be forgotten. Legitimate interests governments to store a minimum set of data needed administrate functions like tax collections. But beyond those basic functions you absolutely have the right to be forgotten, and many of the aforementioned law suites revolve around individuals suing the state for retaining personal data inappropriately.
Going to make the assumption you're American. I would point out the US constitutions 4th amendment is meant to restrict your governments collection of data on its citizen in a similar fashion to GDPR. Only difference is that GDPR is modern legislation that deals with the internet, and restricts companies in addition to governments.
It's such a shame that US government seems to be hellbent on ignoring or perverting the 4th amendment as much as possible. For some reason you seem to believe this intrusion is reasonable, and wish to inflict in on every citizen in the world.
>The EU believes that privacy is a human right that everyone should have
Specially from the moment that political position can procure them financial rents, and a good pretext to stop the penetration of american companies in the economy.
And no, I am from a country inside the EU, and I am appalled at how the Brussels bureaucrats keep interfering in my relations with companies.
When asked, 90% of people seaid no to "Do you ant to be tracked" popup that iOS introduced.
So yeah, it's clear that:
1. Most people do not want for companies to collect more data than necessary
2. GDPR in no way, shape, or form interferes with "you relations with companies" if those companies, you kno, actually followed the law. You'd get a simple "yes/no" question, you'd click yes, and everybody else would click "no".
EU governments rampantly spy on their own citizens and domestically held data in ways that would make US agencies blush. This is exposed over and over again but no one cares because everyone is fixated on the US.
Can your refresh my memory, of such illegal spying?
Also the GIANT difference is that US can legally spy on non US citizens, so even if I would complain that NSA hacked my company and stole a lot of people private data the Americans will just say "they did their job, all is legal" , there is need for an agreement so we respect each other citizens. if you think X is a terrorist and want to read his emails then does not matter if X is or not a US citizens you follow the laws and present a judge your evidence and ask for permission to spy.
Just had to call out a nuance here - Disorder is an extremely strong word. People living with ASD are not "weird" or "abnormal" in anyway whatsoever, they are just different. As a society, we accept people's genetically predetermined sexual orientation, regardless of whether it represents the majority. ASD is no different, lets avoid calling it a disorder.
Disorder is a medical term that means an illness that disrupts normal physical or mental functions. This describes autism but not homosexuality (which, I was not aware, has now been declared to be of entirely genetic basis?)
Even if they were to both fit the definition, I’m not sure what the objection to the word is.
To slap down my lived experience: gay and on the spectrum.
And the spectrum part is definitely a disorder. It’s a deep-down and profound inability to connect. We are a fundamentally social species, to a fundamental inability to get socialization at a visceral level is pretty disordered.
"Wildly" might be an overstatement. As your own link says, genetics are a significant (but not the only) factor.
I agree the whole binary thing is BS, but i think what the poster was originally trying to dispute is that its all in people's head as an emotional state, which is also clearly very wrong.
There is a lot of things we don't know about autism. One thing we definitely do know is that it is not caused by vaccines. We know this as this has been well studied due to the whole vaccine conspiracy theory.
Saw her most recent special (Hasn't been on Netflix or anything) last August in Darwin, and it was a pivot back to more standard comedy. Mentioned some of her issues, but far less rant-orientated than Douglas or Nanette.
I think this sentiment would be good motivation for her to keep on going. For one, a lot of comedy is based on grievance and grudge and presenting them in a novel light. And she is shedding light on subjects, that could use a more honest representation in mainstream culture.
And as a dutch person, I was happy that I could finally watch a comedian with my wife, that didn't have the rapid fire of separate jokes and at some random point just... ends. Instead I could watch a show with her that had theme and an arc, and also wasn't afraid to just put the audience in uncomfortable position and leave them there for a while. It really felt like going to a dutch comedian, and I was surprised to see this have any success in the US market.
Explaining differences between "North" and "South" through colonial exploitation is a traditional "coping mechanism" of those with inferiority complex.
The "South" benefited massively from transfers of technology from the North. The North benefited with ....?
And remember, the constitution was an agreement signed by many groups, and every single clause of it represents the result of negotiations and struggles.
Changing the constitution means overriding that consensus.