European privacy regulator: EU must ban Pegasus spyware – Computer – News

Hmmm, I rather think that certain authorities have an exception or a license (exemption, or whatever it is called in the legal world) for certain purposes.

Anyway, I have to say I don’t know this specifically.
I think we mean the same/are on the same page.

I do think your landmine example is comparing apples and oranges a bit.
According to wikipedia, in 1997 we signed a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. This is the Ottawa treaty and has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. We have drawn this ourselves and consciously.

If something is imposed on us from the EU, which is democratically decided, then we don’t have to agree with it but follow it anyway. And even then, it is very common for government entities to make the news for ignoring the law and doing things that are not allowed.

For example, the army processes civilian data, the secret service uses data obtained through the dragnet law, etc. One of the loopholes that I have heard (not checked) is that the secret service can send the data abroad unfiltered, filter it itself to comply with the law. and then get the full data back. As a result, they fully comply with the letter of the law, but not with the idea behind it. Well.

And because of this, I think that the Secret Service continues to do things that are not allowed, regardless of what law tells them not to use something.

Last but not least, the secret service cannot be controlled either, so banning it doesn’t make much sense anyway. We do have ‘committee secretly’ (Commission for the Intelligence and Security Services), but that is actually also a toothless tiger of course. As if the Secret Service shows them the back of the tongue. No, I’m not falling for that. Then it becomes a matter of trust and secret services I don’t trust at all in this. They do want to protect us, but not that they won’t do everything they can, including going against EU law.

–