If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
It seems like they have replied and said they won’t repel the act.
Yep, turns out they only voted against it because they wouldn’t be the ones spying.
Thanks, Kier Star.
That was their initial response. When a petition reaches 10k signatures, it requires a written response from the gvt. When it hits 100k signatures, it requires a “debate” in parliament. The debates are often shams where the topic is tokenly brought up and then routinely dismissed. But it does at least require that they read the signed text.
In this case I think the argument is poorly made in the petition text. It does not even mention digital security, and the risk of a data leak for ID collectors.
Every time one of these petitions comes up it’s always badly worded. I still think that the stop killing games petition was badly worded and gave them an easy out.
tbh the petition owner should be part of the parliament debate. at the very least to give a speech. I think that would be a very reasonable thing to accommodate, and would give a chance for the argument to be prepared and properly made. That would be very democratic.
At the very least I wish these people would announce the wording of the petition in advance of filing the petition, so that it could be worked on. There are lawyers out there who are interested in this course I’m sure they could help, but unfortunately once the petition is filed that’s the wording you have to go with even if it’s inaccurate and loose in its definition.