That’s because this is such a GOOD and LEGAL measure! They ONLY exempt themselves from the BEST and FAIREST measures!
The second parliament wants themselves to be the sole exception from a law they wanna pass, that law should be scrapped.
That’s great optics.
Not sure how workable it is to define how you would define “confidential information” without having already viewed the content. But the whole thing isn’t very clever on a technical level anyway. Technically competent people will always find a way around such censorship.
True conservatism is about one thing and one thing only:
Here in the states, a lot of the Republican party campaigns as Reagan and [George H. W.] Bush conservatives or OG conservatives, and I have to remind them that those conservatives and MAGAs (Christian nationalists, white power) are the exact same thing.
The policies of Reagan accelerated our path to the precipice of one-party autocracy. What they pushed as policy then figures largely in how we got here, with the last vestiges of US democracy tilting off the precipice into one-party autocracy.
Old fiscal responsibility / family values Republicans just wished they had another mile or two to plummet and the cold rocks below weren’t looming so close.
To toss in another metaphor, they didn’t just buy a ticket to ride, they used their railroad shares to vote on where to lay the rails, and where the line ends.
It may not need to wear a red shirt, nor a blue shirt… If you hear fascism is on the rise and you think “Maga” you are naive.
Obviously important but “Published 2 months ago, on April 15, 2024” so would be good to also have an up to date link to understand what has changed, if anything, since that leak.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/csam_cleaned.pdf
Leaked updated proposal (14.06.2024)
(12a) 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.
= it has stayed the same. They still want to exempt themselves
That sounds more like they are excluding most corporate internal systems, (which would also happen to cover the systems run by government.)
Yes it does, but why would that exception be needed if it was such a good infallible system that they are proposing. They know of the problems of their proposal and are not willing to have it in a corporate or their own systems but it’s supposed to be fine for the masses to have security and privacy issues