io@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square4fedilinkarrow-up1287arrow-down11file-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1286arrow-down1imageChatcontrol news!piefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneio@piefed.blahaj.zone to Privacy@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square4fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 hours 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-up1·edit-215 minutes 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?
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?