So ‘children’ still sell to the EU public while ‘war’ doesn’t sell. All about the framing, as usual.
I wonder if it all could be circumvented by making your chat servers reside in another country? There is UK and there are a couple of non-EU states in Europe. I wonder how that may work out. I mean, the EU could outright ban a certain service, but given their bureaucracy and slowness, doubt that’s going to happen unless that chat service is really causing (willfully or not) moral panic waves in the public space. They do have this text, however, just not sure how they’re supposed to enforce it? :
Online child sexual abuse frequently involves the misuse of information society services
offered in the Union by providers established in third countries. In order to ensure the
effectiveness of the rules laid down in this Regulation and a level playing field within the
internal market, those rules should apply to all providers, irrespective of their place of
establishment or residence, that offer services in the Union, as evidenced by a substantial
connection to the Union.
And what about one-to-one chats? I didn’t see that bit in the text. Suppose if your chat isn’t providing groups but exists solely to facilitate one-to-one communication, just between you and me. Will that also fall under that surveillance bill?
They even go as far as targeting email, and the wording is strange…
As they are increasingly used for that purpose, those services should include publicly available interpersonal communications services, such as messaging services and web-based e-mail services, in so far as those services as are publicly available. As services which enable direct interpersonal and interactive exchange of information merely as a minor ancillary feature that is intrinsically linked to another service, such as chat and similar functions as part of gaming, image-sharing and video-hosting are equally at risk of misuse, they should also be covered by this Regulation … the obligations imposed on the providers of those services should be differentiated in an appropriate manner.
Appropriate manners, my ass. So certainly the personal email server I run is publicly available as in available for the entire internet to send me mail? Or does that only cover services where an account could be created by a third party?
They’re also shielding companies specifically
In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and
the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal communications services that are not available to the general public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons involved in the activities of a particular company, organisation, body or authority.
But not “a particular citizen” however.
Can someone link to child exploitation statistics that ruffled their feathers so much? There are probably hundreds of thousands of children who are practically begging for this to be implemented, but I haven’t really seen any non-biased research or stats. For example, breaking the US monopoly/stranglehold on technology/communication is somehow very low on their agenda, meaning they think that giving Meta the eye actually solves any kind of problem, yet your own citizens are just an unruly bunch, but that particular angle’s been covered in those articles.
