Session Profile: Ants Frosch
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
2024-04-17
Political Position
The political stance is vehemently opposed to the e-voting system and the associated legislative process, viewing the system as hopeless and vulnerable to manipulation. The speaker frames this situation as a crisis of Estonian parliamentarism and a movement toward autocracy, stressing that the Prime Minister’s will always prevails. This position is principled (value-based), centering on electoral integrity and the failure of democratic procedures.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates technical expertise regarding the retention deadlines for e-election logs, proposing longer periods (one year, 10, or 50 years) while taking IT development into account. They are also knowledgeable about the application of facial recognition technologies for authentication, referencing its use in the Ministry of Social Affairs and in notarial transactions. A detailed example of election violations in the Otepää municipality is presented, illustrating knowledge of methods used for election abuse.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is combative, critical, and dramatic, utilizing strong emotional appeals and anecdotes (the officer and the radio receiver) to criticize the quality of the debate. Storytelling (the Otepää incident) is employed to illustrate procedural and ethical shortcomings. The speech concludes with a provocative and Trumpian call for hackers to attack the system and cause it to collapse.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in the plenary session, repeatedly posing questions to the rapporteur and participating extensively in the debate concerning the e-voting bill. He refers to previous actions, such as identifying violations and submitting them to the prosecutor's office. During his extended address, the speaker requests an additional three minutes.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is directed at the coalition and the prime minister, who are accused of moving toward the consolidation of power, as well as the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee (Terras). The criticism is both procedural (fast-tracking the process, low quality of debate) and substantive (distrust of the e-voting system). The opposition is intense because the system is viewed as vulnerable to manipulation and irreparable.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker refers supportively to colleague Jaak Valge, who likewise criticized the state of parliamentarism. Information regarding cooperation or willingness to compromise with the coalition is absent; the style remains largely oppositional, highlighting the system's failure.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus is evident in the example of Otepää municipality, which describes the alleged manipulation of e-voting by social workers and the mayor targeting elderly residents on their farms during the context of local elections. This example serves to illustrate the vulnerability of the e-voting system.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient information.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The social sector is only relevant in terms of the technological aspect, specifically referencing the Ministry of Social Affairs' use of facial recognition to prove a person is alive when they claim their pension. This example is presented within the context of technological authentication solutions.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is currently the opposition to Draft Bill 344, which amends the Riigikogu Election Act, specifically centering on the reliability of e-elections. The speaker wishes to extend the retention period for anonymous logs (e.g., 10 or 50 years) and investigate the use of facial recognition for authentication. He is a staunch critic of the bill.
5 Speeches Analyzed