By Plenary Sessions: Ants Frosch

Criticism is aimed at the drafters of the bill, who failed to include the cost of replacing Chinese cameras in Estonia in the impact assessment. The opposition is both procedural and political, highlighting the analysis's shortcomings at the intersection of security and finance.

The criticism is aimed at the content and structure of the draft bill, particularly concerning the massive delegation of authority granted to the Minister of Finance. The opposition is based on both policy and procedural grounds, highlighting the risk posed by the lack of independent oversight and the negative consequences resulting from previous innovations (e-residency).

The main criticism is directed at the minister and the government's proposal, specifically faulting the inadequate impact analysis and the imposition of an additional burden on local municipalities. The criticism is policy-based and procedural, focusing on the feasibility of implementation and the lack of resources.

Direct political opposition is not being voiced, but the government (the Prime Minister) is being pressured regarding the resolution of operational security matters. Criticism is aimed at procedural management and incident handling, demanding specific answers concerning the status of databases and cameras.