This is framing. I live in the Netherlands, who voted against this version of ChatControl light. Messenger apps are now allowed not nog forced to scan messages and report incidents (mostly aimed at child pornography i understand).
Sounds good maybe, but here it is feared that scanning PRIVATE messages is normalised in this way, and will be made compulsary in the future.
So all things considered a bad fucking day for privacy. If anything the EU moves back to ChatControl after the initial version was rejected (rightly so in my opionion.)
This is framing. They back away from forcing companies offensively, now they tell them they got to implement technology to protect against it.
It's less clear what the hell now happens, but threatens companies if they don't implement something. The result will now be the same but the marketing is easier, and that's clearly the goal.
Under the new rules, online service providers must assess the risk that their services could be misused to spread depictions of child sexual abuse or to contact children. Based on this assessment, they must take measures to mitigate this risk.
(Emphasis mine)
That is not actually voluntary. The drafters of this bill are playing wordgames to trick committee members into passing mandatory chat scanning.
The strategy is to keep proposing this bullshit until the public gets tired of raising an outcry every time. Once it's been proposed and abandoned a dozen times, nobody takes it seriously, then they can pass it without too much resistance.
15 Comments
Heresto@lemmy.world · 92 pts · 264d
This is framing. I live in the Netherlands, who voted against this version of ChatControl light. Messenger apps are now allowed not nog forced to scan messages and report incidents (mostly aimed at child pornography i understand).
Sounds good maybe, but here it is feared that scanning PRIVATE messages is normalised in this way, and will be made compulsary in the future.
So all things considered a bad fucking day for privacy. If anything the EU moves back to ChatControl after the initial version was rejected (rightly so in my opionion.)
falseWhite@lemmy.world · 59 pts · 264d
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 263d
I for one will be moving back to writing physical letters
Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de · 57 pts · 264d
This is framing. They back away from forcing companies offensively, now they tell them they got to implement technology to protect against it.
It's less clear what the hell now happens, but threatens companies if they don't implement something. The result will now be the same but the marketing is easier, and that's clearly the goal.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 38 pts · 264d
(Emphasis mine)
That is not actually voluntary. The drafters of this bill are playing wordgames to trick committee members into passing mandatory chat scanning.
AtariDump@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 264d
“We and our up to 188 partners use cookies and tracking technologies.”
Nope!
http://archive.today/KhL08
egrets@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 264d
The link is an archive of OP's article, for anyone wondering if they should click.
AtariDump@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 261d
Thanks!
RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip · 24 pts · 264d
No, they have not. More accurate to say they are going ahead regardless of what the people wants.
huppakee@piefed.social · 11 pts · 264d
… bit just for now, I'm afraid.
Unleaded8163@fedia.io · 15 pts · 264d
The strategy is to keep proposing this bullshit until the public gets tired of raising an outcry every time. Once it's been proposed and abandoned a dozen times, nobody takes it seriously, then they can pass it without too much resistance.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 264d
BroBot9000@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 264d
Good fucking news for once
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 8 pts · 263d
Fuuuuck, that sounds like the government won chat control. You can't do this without breaking confidential communications.
We lost :'(
Is signal pulling out of the EU now?
ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com · 6 pts · 264d
Control these nuts
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 6 pts · 263d
Name and shame. Which apps fuck over their users by installing government backdoors voluntarily?
falseWhite@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 264d
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org · 1 pts · 264d
This article is about that proposal.