According to the latest draft text of the controversial EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation proposal leaked by the French news organisation Contexte, EU interior ministers want to exempt professional accounts of staff of intelligence agencies, police and military from the envisaged scanning of chats and messages (Article 1 (2a)). The regulation should also not apply to ‘confidential information’ such as professional secrets (Article 1 (2b)). The EU governments reject the idea that the new EU Child Protection Centre should support them in the prevention of child sexual abuse and develop best practices for prevention initiatives (Article 43(8)), writes Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer.
  • macniel@feddit.de
    0·
    6 months ago

    Hahahaha… No.

    You (potentially) voted for this. You will suffer it as well!

    Also all of my and everyones correspondence is confidental, now what? We in Germany have a law (Postgeheimnis) for that as well!

  • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    Absolutely not. If anything, public officials would be the one group whose messaging I would understand being scanned so that the people can sort of keep them on check. But again, implementing such possibility that would still weaken security of everyone else as well so of course it should not actually be done.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    So the implication is that keeping the masses in check is the primary goal and protecting the children was the incidental part?

    • fluckx@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      We do this to find criminals, drugsdealers, paedophiles and terrorists. MEPS are never part of any of those groups.

      Source: trust me bro >.>

      Rules for thee and not for me.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Just remember “terrorism” is a generic term these days. Russia invaded Ukraine over “terrorism.”

        It wouldn’t shock me if they started carefully monitoring political views to detect anything the state doesn’t like.

    • XTL@sopuli.xyz
      0·
      6 months ago

      Protecting children has never been an intention or an outcome with these laws.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.

    Remember the rule of authoritarians: if someone wants to stop you from being suspicious, they want to stop you from doing the same things they’ve done.

    • sibachian@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.

      Now I’m suddenly not so against this law. Journalists paradise. They’ll have a field day!

      • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        6 months ago

        It would just result in them having official and unofficial devices, where all the things they don’t want linked to their person, political party or public knowledge is on a different device that isn’t going to get caught in the FOIA requests.

  • Veticia@lemmy.ml
    0·
    6 months ago

    How about making every message of government officials be public and saved in easily searchable database for the populace and make content of their screens be streamed 24/7? No? Why? Nothing to hide nothing to fear? Right?

    You stupid fuck.

    • Wave@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      I Really like the ending, it ties it all together. Id like to imagine Clancy Brown saying it directly to the EU