io@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square7linkfedilinkarrow-up1360arrow-down11file-textcross-posted to: buyeuropean@feddit.ukeurope@feddit.org
arrow-up1359arrow-down1imageChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneio@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square7linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: buyeuropean@feddit.ukeurope@feddit.org
minus-squareunexposedhazardlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 months agoFrom a post here two days ago: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/this-is-a-political-deception-new-chat-control-convinces-lawmakers-but-not-privacy-experts-yet I guess this is an addendum to this proposal to clarify that these rules dont classify as making scanning mandatory.
minus-squarewiegell@feddit.dklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 months agoYea i read that, but isn’t this post about that not being an issue anymore?? // Edit: I mean in particular Patrick Breyer was been critical about the revised proposal, so him posting this now suggests that something new has happened?
minus-squareunexposedhazardlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoYes and the new thing that happened is the section “17a” shown in this post i would assume.
From a post here two days ago: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/this-is-a-political-deception-new-chat-control-convinces-lawmakers-but-not-privacy-experts-yet
I guess this is an addendum to this proposal to clarify that these rules dont classify as making scanning mandatory.
Yea i read that, but isn’t this post about that not being an issue anymore?? // Edit: I mean in particular Patrick Breyer was been critical about the revised proposal, so him posting this now suggests that something new has happened?
Yes and the new thing that happened is the section “17a” shown in this post i would assume.