According to the latest draft text of the controversial EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation proposal leaked by the French news organisation Contexte, EU interior ministers want to exempt professional accounts of staff of intelligence agencies, police and military from the envisaged scanning of chats and messages (Article 1 (2a)). The regulation should also not apply to ‘confidential information’ such as professional secrets (Article 1 (2b)). The EU governments reject the idea that the new EU Child Protection Centre should support them in the prevention of child sexual abuse and develop best practices for prevention initiatives (Article 43(8)), writes Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer.
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
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
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
That sounds more like they are excluding most corporate internal systems, (which would also happen to cover the systems run by government.)
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