|
The article has tidbits of hyperbole (you're right that it's no secret move), but accusing it of "pure propaganda" is a pretty strong take. A bit more background to complement yours: the law was initially put forward in early September, to be put to a vote in a few weeks, sidestepping the required opinions from certain public bodies (like the portuguese DPA, CNPD). This was uncharacteristically fast for a proposal that is supposed to touch a lot of new ground (AI, ethics, permanent recording, biometric storage). Its quick approval only did not happen as planned because of the death of a former president, which suspended the Parliamentary schedule and moved things forward a couple of weeks. As you remind, this was followed by the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament by the end of November, to be followed by early elections in January. If it was not for the passing of former president Jorge Sampaio, the law would most probably been successfully fast-tracked. Instead of backing down (the impending dissolution of Parliament would render the proposal void), the government doubled down and asked for special treatment to still get it approved in time. Add to that the fact that this law was initially presented right in the middle of the national campaign for local elections, and one can't be faulted for pointing out an unusual and determined drive to speed this through. Not secret, but hardly fair in democratic terms. Finally, the framing of this as a "video surveillance bill" (which you follow) is loaded and inaccurate. Video surveillance is thoroughly regulated in Portugal; what this bill brings is the application of AI without any practical safeguards, or biometric databases with few security stipulations, in the 4th safest country in the world with no records of domestic or foreign terrorism. This is exactly the kind of bill that requires proper public debate and getting feedback from public bodies and civil society (as most laws like these do). Its formulation -- mushing together police bodycams, AI, drones, biometrics, expanded access to recordings -- made journalistic reporting and public debate much more difficult. Why this law is being fast-tracked is still in the realm of speculation, and it's still in the air whether it will go through or not, but let's not dismiss the valid concerns with this kind of opaque political move. (I'm happy to clarify and add to the relevant context for those not following this closely, but this comment is already long enough) |
You mean 29th? ;-)
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/non-economic-data/safest-c...
Portugal was 4th in 2019: it only goes to show how meaningless these rankings are, so I'd drop it as an argument (even a passing one) in any discussion.