It is really scary the accelerating trend of creating regulations to restrict or violate basic human rights on the basis of straw man national security reasons...
What is nice with this law is that they can look for things not related to the hack on target devices. If they see something incriminating against you not related to the case, they can still use it against you in a new procedure. Without warrant. How convenient.
In addition, I can easily guess that they don't have to prove that you were really hacked, but mere suspicion or being a potential victim of the hackers might be enough.
What makes me feel puzzled is I remember politicians were condemning these type of actions done in authoritarian countries.
I now wonder whether that was a genuine concern or just a tool used for bargaining.
I also find puzzling, that I remember people being outraged if country X done something and now when something like this gets done in Western countries, there is very much indifference.
When I talked about this with a couple of friends, who are not interested in politics, they just shrugged it "why would anyone would be interested in spying on me. I don't do anything wrong, so they can follow me to their heart's content. That would be a waste of time." and so on.
Seems like indeed, the media are powerful in regulating emotions and turning the outrage up and down.
If that topic was on the front pages, using the same language as some other issues that governments are using to cover up their ineptitude (so called dead cats), then maybe people would be more aware and inclined to do something about it. But I can imagine anyone trying to run these kind of stories would be quickly shut down.
When a politician says a country is authoritarian, they don't really care about that. What they mean is that "this country is not friendly to our own imperial interests so they are bad".
The media is owned by these same people that push these laws.
> I also find puzzling, that I remember people being outraged if country X done something and now when something like this gets done in Western countries, there is very much indifference.
This also works the other way around. For example, if some far right group in US uses Nazi symbolism, people get understandably outraged, and the system goes into overdrive to destroy the groups and people involved. On the other hand, when random photos of Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi patches sewed to their uniforms keep popping up, the New York Times talks about “complicated relationship with Nazi imagery”
The point is, all that matters is “who whom”, and there is little point in trying to parse and analyze the arguments made by powers on rational, objective level. These are always self-serving, and if take these at face value and respond to the content, you have been successfully fooled.
What is nice with this law is that they can look for things not related to the hack on target devices. If they see something incriminating against you not related to the case, they can still use it against you in a new procedure. Without warrant. How convenient.
In addition, I can easily guess that they don't have to prove that you were really hacked, but mere suspicion or being a potential victim of the hackers might be enough.