Finland passes enhanced surveillance bills without a vote | Hacker News Reader

Finland passes enhanced surveillance bills without a vote

yle.fi

61 pointsff_19 comments

I'm currently launching https://tiedustelulaki.com/

On this website I intend to collect as much information as possible about the politicians who supported this legislation, I hope to expose every last part of their private lives. Nothing will be off limits.

I'm starting out with a total of 20000 euro budget in cryptocurrency that I intend to use to fund some sort of a bounty program in order to collect personal information on politicians who voted for this legislation.

It's not that there was no vote so much as there was no opposition, so not vote was needed to pass it. It's as if it passed unanimously. Although this happened in a "nearly-empty plenary chamber", which makes one wonder about quorum -- did they have quorum?

There is no minimum requirement for plenary sessions.

Looks like the majority of MPs were present at the beginning (list of absentees: https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/PoytakirjaLiite/Sivut/EDK-... ), but the video shows that by the end (when voting happens) most people were not present anymore: https://www.eduskunta.fi/_layouts/15/Arkena.Edk.SaliVideo/in...

Note that "without a vote" in this context means that no one in the plenary session opposed passing it, so no vote was held.

Thank you for the clarification. Reading the title I understood that it was "slipped in" somehow without following due process (for example because it wouldn't have gotten the votes). Which would have made a world of difference.

I was not expecting this from a country like Finland.

I'm confused. Is it that there were no mp's who were opposed to the legislation? Or is it that there were, but it was somehow sneaked through without a chance for them to vote against it? Or what?

The article is scant on details - what was the bill and why was it controversial?

I wonder why this was marked dead.

  tiedustelulaki 14 minutes ago [dead] [-]

  I'm currently launching https://tiedustelulaki.com/

  On this website I intend to collect as much information
  as possible about the politicians who supported this
  legislation, I hope to expose every last part of their
  private lives. Nothing will be off limits.

  I'm starting out with a total of 20000 euro budget in 
  cryptocurrency that I intend to use to fund some sort 
  of a bounty program in order to collect personal
  information on politicians who voted for this legislation.

While the response might be considered over-the-top, it also reflects a level of concern and anger which HN readers may find helpful in understanding.

New account with no post history posting a link gets automatically marked as dead. When this happens you can select the post and click on [vouch] if you think it's not spammy.

Is it really over-the-top? This seems like it could be a rather effective way for individuals to make a difference.

> over-the-top

Looks like tit-for-tat to me.

The comment was killed by a software filter that is based on past activity by trolls and applies to brand new accounts. It has since been unkilled by users vouching for it, which is the intended use of vouching.

In the future, can you please not post comments like this? They always attract attention because meta is the crack of internet forums, but they take discussion off topic, and the discussion they do lead to is usually just a sugar high rather than interesting. Here are two better things to do in such cases:

(1) vouch for the comment (click on its timestamp to go its page, then click 'vouch' at the top—this requires karma > 30);

(2) email us. Then we can unkill the comment and mark the account legit so it won't happen again.

could you please explain what's a meta?

A discussion about the discussion.

Right, or the voting. Or more generally, HN talking about HN on HN.

Smart rule, that kind of thing is a bottomless pit second only to chained puns.

It really is crack though. Or sometimes I call it evil catnip.

I’ve become convinced that anything which makes us experience strong feelings has the potential to be compelling. Add to that the difficulty many of us have with letting things go, and you have a recipe for intellectual/emotional “crack” as you say, in the online world. Offline we tend to pursue extreme feelings in ways that don’t erode our relationships with others, or give us a bad reputation, but online those controls tend to fall away.

It’s a tough problem that seems like it requires commensurate energy (mods) to control.

oh no, not Finland!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com