5 ms·

There is no actual legal proposal at all to introduce mandatory screening (yet, anyway). In my opinion, such legislation would be unlikely to pass EU parliamen

by AnssiH 5y ago

There is no actual legal proposal at all to introduce mandatory screening (yet, anyway). In my opinion, such legislation would be unlikely to pass EU parliament. It is more likely that the current temporary rules allowing voluntary screening get reworked into a permanent legislative proposal. AFAIK the only relevant official procedure here is this initiative that sought feedback from affected parties (and it does not mention mandatory screening - instead it asked for opinions on what should be done): https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12726-Fighting-child-sexual-abuse-detection-removal-and-reporting-of-illegal-content-online_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...

bruce343434 5y ago
Are you in the know about the whole chat control fiasco? The legislation for non mandatory chat control/decryption is already there...
- AnssiH 5y ago
  I assume you mean Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 (legal text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R1232 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... , press release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IPR07503/parliament-adopts-temporary-rules-to-detect-child-sexual-abuse-online https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IP... ) that got approved in July this year. In my opinion it is not a fiasco at all. It simply allows the current pre-Dec-2020 practice of voluntary screening to continue for a limited period of 3 years (so they have time to get a proper permanent legislation in place). Privacy rules changed in Dec-2020 that made voluntary screening effectively illegal, hence the stopgap.
- pimterry 5y ago
  To be clear - that previous legislation only legalizes in the EU the CSAM content scanning that online services were already doing (by their own choice) in the EU before GDPR, and which they're also doing everywhere else. It just avoids GDPR unintentionally making it illegal for service providers to scan for CSAM without opt-in user consent from every user involved, and only does so for a temporary period until legislation that formally defines service provider responsibilities is ready. Personally, I'm fine with that. I firmly agree that private E2E messaging should not be banned (the suggestion in this post, which as noted above is not currently a real proposal) but I don't think that means service providers should be forced to blindly host user data that may contain CSAM against their will.

by AnssiH 5y ago

bruce343434 5y ago

Are you in the know about the whole chat control fiasco? The legislation for non mandatory chat control/decryption is already there...

AnssiH 5y ago
I assume you mean Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 (legal text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R1232 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... , press release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IPR07503/parliament-adopts-temporary-rules-to-detect-child-sexual-abuse-online https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IP... ) that got approved in July this year. In my opinion it is not a fiasco at all. It simply allows the current pre-Dec-2020 practice of voluntary screening to continue for a limited period of 3 years (so they have time to get a proper permanent legislation in place). Privacy rules changed in Dec-2020 that made voluntary screening effectively illegal, hence the stopgap.
pimterry 5y ago
To be clear - that previous legislation only legalizes in the EU the CSAM content scanning that online services were already doing (by their own choice) in the EU before GDPR, and which they're also doing everywhere else. It just avoids GDPR unintentionally making it illegal for service providers to scan for CSAM without opt-in user consent from every user involved, and only does so for a temporary period until legislation that formally defines service provider responsibilities is ready. Personally, I'm fine with that. I firmly agree that private E2E messaging should not be banned (the suggestion in this post, which as noted above is not currently a real proposal) but I don't think that means service providers should be forced to blindly host user data that may contain CSAM against their will.