By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

There is no direct criticism of opponents, but the speaker actively tackles common fears and objections (waste, construction costs, market penetration), attempting to refute them using factual evidence. The criticism is aimed at previous political indecision, which has damaged Estonia's competitiveness, rather than specific political groups.

The opposition is directed at those who present misconceptions about the e-voting system, especially regarding the software's auditability. The criticism is technical and fundamental, emphasizing that the opposing side lacks sufficient technological fluency to validate the system. The opponents' claims are deemed dangerous because they leave a misleading impression.

The views of the opposition (e.g., proposals by the Isamaa faction for continuing the universal service, or questions from Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and Mart Maastik regarding the rules of procedure) are reported neutrally, but the decisions of the committee majority are defended. Criticism was primarily procedural (concerning the committee's competence and the scope of involvement) and political (regarding the fate of the universal service). The speaker explains why the objections were rejected (e.g., requirements stemming from the directive, avoiding penalties/fines).

Direct opposition is not expressed, but the speaker indirectly challenges the previous position held by the legal department and the Data Protection Inspectorate. The criticism is aimed at their procedural and technical interpretation, as these institutions operated based on a false premise regarding the positioning of the equipment.