Technology

34838 readers

20 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

550

Leak: EU interior ministers want to exempt themselves from chat control bulk scanning of private messages - EU Reporter (www.eureporter.co)

submitted 4 months ago by makeasnek@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Unskilled5117@feddit.de 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/csam_cleaned.pdf

Leaked updated proposal (14.06.2024)

(12a) In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal communications services that are not available to the general public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons involved in the activities of a particular company, organisation, body or authority.

= it has stayed the same. They still want to exempt themselves

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago

more limited risk

Doubt

[–] brianorca@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That sounds more like they are excluding most corporate internal systems, (which would also happen to cover the systems run by government.)

[–] Unskilled5117@feddit.de 2 points 4 months ago

Yes it does, but why would that exception be needed if it was such a good infallible system that they are proposing. They know of the problems of their proposal and are not willing to have it in a corporate or their own systems but it’s supposed to be fine for the masses to have security and privacy issues