io@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agoChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square7linkfedilinkarrow-up1358arrow-down11file-text
arrow-up1357arrow-down1imageChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneio@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square7linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarewiegell@feddit.dklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·4 days agoWhat are the details about this? Not really apparent from the links
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·4 days 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-up3·4 days 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-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoYes and the new thing that happened is the section “17a” shown in this post i would assume.
What are the details about this? Not really apparent from the links
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.