cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/45880359

  • The EU Parliament is pushing for an agreement on the child sexual abuse (CSAM) scanning bill, according to a leaked memo

  • According to the Council Legal Service, the proposal still violates fundamental human rights in its current form

  • The Danish version of the so-called Chat Control could be adopted as early as October 14, 2025

The nations welcoming and supporting the Danish proposal include Italy, Spain, and Hungary. France also said that “it could essentially support the proposal.”

Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, Luxembourg, and Romania currently remain undecided or in need of a review with their local parliament.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    A law that doesn’t apply is worthless.

    Thinking that this somehow makes you or your anachronistic shithole of a country somewhat better is just plain delusional.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      First, my anachronistic shithole of a country would be Russia.

      Second, I said right, not law. Rights are more transcendent.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Rights don’t exist. They are social conventions based in law. If you don’t have a law or the law isn’t enforced then you don’t have a right.

        Contrary to the name, there are no basic, inalienable human rights.

        If your right is not supported by law, it does not exist.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Rights don’t exist. They are social conventions based in law. If you don’t have a law or the law isn’t enforced then you don’t have a right.

          That’s your opinion which was a minority one in most of the world for most of history. Including such counterintuitive parts of it as China.

          Contrary to the name, there are no basic, inalienable human rights.

          Says who and based on what?

          If your right is not supported by law, it does not exist.

          And from which hairy arse would a law gain justification to determine someone’s rights?

          You are likely from one of the countries with English-derived legal system, where the precedent mechanism literally means that there are non-codified rights outside of the law, which the interpretation of the law has to approximate.