- go on the political offensive to have non-tech people realize why they should care about things like this
- establish an entire new model for society somewhere, like how personal freedom maximalists left the then-monarchical/theocratic Europe for the new world long ago
There is a deadline which is the end of the term of the current european commission (next year after the elections).If the new commission doesn't want to take this law any further, it will be dropped.
Each country gets one or two commissioners. They are appointed by their respective national governments, subject to approval by the EU Parliament (but rejection is as rare as rocking-horse shit).
Basically, commissioners are usually former senior politicians who can no longer get elected, because they've been disgraced in some way or other. It's a sinecure.
It's almost impossible to dismiss them; the EU Parliament only has the power to dismiss the entire commission. That sounds like a nuclear option that could never be used; but is has been done, exactly once. It was over corruption; the parliament decided that essentially every commissioner was crooked.
As I understand it, the Parliament only gets a vote on the Commission President. The other 26 are selected by the Council of Ministers, without Parliamentary oversight.
Well, pick up a history book, and you'll see lots of people escaped religious persecution in Europe.
They wanted to practice their religion / lack thereof, thus were freedom-seeking.
They were willing to brave an Atlantic crossing in small wooden ships and build brand-new lives rather than put up with curtailed freedoms; hence "maximalists".
And when you mix church and state, or when the state kowtows to the church by persecuting its enemies, you have at least a partial theocracy.
- go on the political offensive to have *tech* people realize why
they should care about things like this
Because seriously, if we had a coherent, coordinated (unionised?)
consensus about reasonable limits on the use of technology then a
widespread refusal to implement technological tyranny would be highly
effective.
The worry that it "only takes a few defectors who will sell out for
the money" is valid, but in reality I don't think things would be
workable if 60%-80% of capable engineers simply wouldn't build, test,
maintain or work with proscribed "fascist technologies".
Without advocating for them I'll just say that I came to this forum a
little over a year ago with the intention of researching ethics and
development. As I near writing some conclusions I feel they're one of
the few organisations I see consistently putting emphasis on ethics
and I am thinking of joining for that reason.
Something along the lines of a Hippocratic Oath is needed.
Notwithstanding the complexities of intent, misuse and side-effects I
increasingly think it is possible for hackers to consistently adopt
a "I will do no harm to others and society" credo.
Sometimes just making it plain to an employer that you belong to a
professional body whose ethics code would prohibit you from working on
unconscionable tech is powerful - not least that it would afford you
some protections under employment law if they threaten to fire you.
At least that applies in other areas of medicine and engineering.
"They" are literally being paid for trying to win while you need to stop what you are doing and sacrifice time, mental and financial resources to perform activism.