The fact is that this petition is made in a very amateurish and fraudulent way. They cannot even check IPs, there is no notification of consent, there are many violations of the GDPR, the law on the protection of personal data ... As I know, the Information Commissioner has also started a procedure because of this petition

A former senior official of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), Miha Brejc, has launched a petition demanding the resignation of Zoran Stevanović, president of the National Council, citing violations of the constitution and the constitutional court. The petition, which claims to have gathered over 70,000 signatures, has sparked controversy due to allegations of fraudulent data collection methods. Brejc, who once served as the head of Slovenia’s intelligence service and is now a vocal critic of the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Janez Janša, argues that public awareness must be raised regarding the rule of law and democratic principles. The petition was initially presented as a legitimate effort to hold political leaders accountable. However, concerns quickly arose over the authenticity of the signatures. Reports indicate that the online form used to collect signatures did not verify the identity of participants or check whether email addresses were valid. This lack of basic verification mechanisms has raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the petition. Some users could submit multiple entries using the same email address, and there were unverified claims that thousands of signatures originated from Israel and India. Brejc responded to these criticisms by asserting that duplicate and invalid entries had been removed through a specific algorithm. He claimed that the system would count multiple submissions from the same email address as one signature. Despite this explanation, technical experts have pointed out that such measures do not guarantee the accuracy of the data collected. The absence of IP tracking or geolocation features in the platform used, Google Forms, means that the origin of the signatures could not be reliably determined. While some advanced tools might allow for approximate location data, they require additional infrastructure and resources that were reportedly not implemented. Further complicating the situation is the question of who orchestrated the petition. Brejc himself has denied involvement by others, stating that he developed the technology behind the petition and has experience with digital systems. He emphasized that all 65,000 entries were verified and that suspicious signatures from certain countries were identified and excluded. Nevertheless, independent analysis suggests that the process lacked transparency and rigor, raising questions about the reliability of the results. Legal and ethical concerns have also emerged. The petition appears to violate several provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and national laws protecting personal data. An authority responsible for overseeing data protection has already initiated proceedings against the organizers. Critics argue that the lack of proper safeguards undermines the credibility of the entire initiative and risks exposing private information without consent. The broader implications of the petition extend beyond its immediate goals. Brejc's actions are framed within a larger context of political dissent against the ruling party, particularly its close ties with conservative figures like Janša. His past role in intelligence services and his current position as a critic of the government lend weight to his arguments, though they also draw scrutiny. Some analysts compare his stance to that of former President Jože Pučnik, whom Janša once exploited politically, suggesting that Brejc may be following a different path. Despite the controversies surrounding the petition, its impact on public discourse remains significant. It has reignited debates about the integrity of digital activism and the challenges of verifying large-scale citizen participation in political movements. As investigations continue, the outcome of this case may influence future approaches to organizing and legitimizing petitions in Slovenia. For now, the focus remains on the factual details of how the petition was conducted and whether its findings can be trusted.