Removing huge legal safeguards, vastly expanding law enforcement's legal freedom, without adding back more nuanced safeguards, makes no sense.
The history of good behavior of NL law enforcement took place, itself, under legal safeguards!
What would have been abuses today, will no longer be abuses. So LE can now act in good faith in a far more pervasive manner.
Unless you think the previous safeguards were superfluous, because of LE good sense, there should still be legal safeguards. More nuanced safeguards of course, that take into account the new LE freedoms. But still explicit legal safeguards.
Otherwise, we are not just depending on LE to act in good faith, but to define good faith. Which is not a good system, or the system before, when safeguards were explicit.
This all presupposes that LE is acting in bad faith, which - so far - has not been my experience. There definitely have been exceptions and those have rightfully been smacked down, both AIVD and the regular police forces have seen judgments against them for trying to expand the envelope to the point that it was clear that was not the intent of the law.
Those 'huge legal safeguards' in practice work out to a fairly loosely specified set of laws that are then interpreted as widely as possible by LE and subsequently tested in court whenever a party feels that they have overstepped the line. This method seems to work well enough that it has become standard procedure and of course new laws will be tested in a similar way. The current investigative process is often very dynamic, far more dynamic than the usual warrant process provides for and in that sense I can see the frustration about seeing a crime in progress and not being able to something about it as something that would need addressing. The international nature of the net and the speed with which these situations develop would mean that the online equivalent of 'skipping state lines' would be enough for a perp to always get away with it. This is an undesirable situation. It is also undesirable that law enforcement would be handed tools that give them too much leeway. Whether this tool is one of those or not will depend very much on how it plays out, given what I know about how the oversight system here works I have very good confidence that if there is abuse that it will be stopped. Dutch LE has learned a lot from various incidents in the past, which led to various backlashes. So they stand to lose as much as they stand to gain here.
The PRIMARY purpose for safeguards, is to document what good faith means, so it has some objective agreed upon ethical meaning.
(The fallback purpose for safeguards is for when bad faith occurs, to provide a documentable reason for taking corrective action.)
"Good faith" with legally defined safeguards is a much clearer and safer situation than "good faith" without a clear definition of what standards, if any, impact what "good faith" could possibly mean.
The history of good behavior of NL law enforcement took place, itself, under legal safeguards!
What would have been abuses today, will no longer be abuses. So LE can now act in good faith in a far more pervasive manner.
Unless you think the previous safeguards were superfluous, because of LE good sense, there should still be legal safeguards. More nuanced safeguards of course, that take into account the new LE freedoms. But still explicit legal safeguards.
Otherwise, we are not just depending on LE to act in good faith, but to define good faith. Which is not a good system, or the system before, when safeguards were explicit.