550
Because of course they do, the filth
They obviously look at child porn. If they had nothing to hide, they would volunteer!
I say it's time to investigate each politicians phones and computers and then install monitoring software.
For the children.
Finally an initiative I can get behind
But that requires the apps to be able to identify if the user is in the "privileged group" or not so even more tracking now? We definitely have to stop it.
It doesn't have to.
They will just get the Foss version while the law requires wage slaves to get daddy approved version OR else!
Authorization by your ID grants you a personal white IP address that we and our 734 partners would carefully use for your own good 🤗
Just like with cryptocurrencies as a crime tool, it needs to get traction so interesting transactions mix with ordinary ones. Making the list of deviating individuals (that won't be leaked in a week, I promise) singles them out as the ones you do want to spy on. Proponents of this law are both evil and stupid.
I know why they want to control digital space and I know they won't leave it alone but still there are a lot of disadvantages to the control that law-obedient people understand and hate. The current situation has a lot of injustice towards them that surely helps fighting crime but the price is way too high. Even completely prohibiting usage of the internet for minors isn't possible because it's a law that's impossible to enforce. There will always be compromises and issues in this space as in many other ones. This is why it's hard or even impossible to have happiness in such a complicated world. The more controversial things there are, the more arguments and issues appear.
They must have something to hide 🤨
How to contact your MEP. We beat this bill last time, we can beat it again https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home
Is this bill going to be voted by the previous representatives or by the ones we just voted? Because that page shows the ones who are leaving.
True conservatism is about one thing and one thing only:
Here in the states, a lot of the Republican party campaigns as Reagan and [George H. W.] Bush conservatives or OG conservatives, and I have to remind them that those conservatives and MAGAs (Christian nationalists, white power) are the exact same thing.
The policies of Reagan accelerated our path to the precipice of one-party autocracy. What they pushed as policy then figures largely in how we got here, with the last vestiges of US democracy tilting off the precipice into one-party autocracy.
Old fiscal responsibility / family values Republicans just wished they had another mile or two to plummet and the cold rocks below weren't looming so close.
To toss in another metaphor, they didn't just buy a ticket to ride, they used their railroad shares to vote on where to lay the rails, and where the line ends.
I'm in North Carolina, since Obama's second term we've been getting redder and redder, and it's kinda bumming me out.
Obviously important but "Published 2 months ago, on April 15, 2024" so would be good to also have an up to date link to understand what has changed, if anything, since that leak.
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
more limited risk
Doubt
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
Rules for thee...
Spying for thee but not for me. Be seeing you.
Saved. Thank you.
There are too many instances of classical-age commenters dealing with the same exact bullshit we deal with now.
It doesn't speak well to our capacity to learn and improve.
That's great optics.
Not sure how workable it is to define how you would define "confidential information" without having already viewed the content. But the whole thing isn't very clever on a technical level anyway. Technically competent people will always find a way around such censorship.
Of course they do.
The second parliament wants themselves to be the sole exception from a law they wanna pass, that law should be scrapped.
That's because this is such a GOOD and LEGAL measure! They ONLY exempt themselves from the BEST and FAIREST measures!
The EU giveth and the EU taketh away
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
550 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
33555 readers
335 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