I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be
> chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost
That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal
I can't actually think of a good reason that the law should prohibit a company from having the option to automatically scan private messages for CSAM. Can you?
Certain implementations may fall afoul of data protection laws however.
I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be
> chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost
That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal
>That’s not true,
my bad then, i misunderstood the context
I can't actually think of a good reason that the law should prohibit a company from having the option to automatically scan private messages for CSAM. Can you?
Certain implementations may fall afoul of data protection laws however.
9 replies →