4 ms·
This decision was needed because the EU was about to ban end-to-end encryption. It’s not the EU commission, but a judge that ruled. AFAIK Commission can still i
by miohtama 3y ago
This decision was needed because the EU was about to ban end-to-end encryption. It’s not the EU commission, but a judge that ruled. AFAIK Commission can still ignore this.
- gpderetta 3y agoThey in fact cannot.
- moffkalast 3y agoUrsula on suicide watch.
- ko27 3y agoYou have it the other way around. Majority of EU member countries wanted to to ban E2E, but the EU institutions prevented that.
- dmichulke 3y agoNo, the ECHR is not a EU institution, it's just European. The bad guys here are the commission and some EU member states.
- 0dayz 3y agoHere's the actual position accord to the commission: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001661-ASW_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-00166...
- miohtama 3y agoAs it is Ylva Johansson, the hater of freedom of speech and the champion of scanning software companies, speaking in this document, here is her background: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...
- asyx 3y agoAs far as I remember, the commission tried to introduce the chat control nonsense but the parliament shut it down.