According to constitutions of member states.
At least here it’s worded in a way that chat control could be argued as unconstitutional (not a lawyer tho).
I would not be surprised that any other sane constitution protects privacy, and by extension digital correspondence, under fundamental rights.
According to constitutions of member states.
At least here it’s worded in a way that chat control could be argued as unconstitutional (not a lawyer tho).
I would not be surprised that any other sane constitution protects privacy, and by extension digital correspondence, under fundamental rights.