>At the beginning of the month, the Danish Presidency decided to change its approach with a new compromise text that makes the chat scanning voluntary, instead.
Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting out of it will not be easy I assume.
I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and requiring risk assessment sounds like "Fine, whatever don't do it if you don't want to do it but if something bad happens it's on you". May be fair to some extent, i.e. Reddit and Telegram can decide how much they trust their users not to run pedo business and be on the hook for it.
On the other hand, it is a backdoor and if the governments go crazy like they did in some other countries where high level politicians are implicated with actual pedophiles and have a tendency for authoritarianism Europe may end up having checking user chats for "enemies of the state" instead of CSAM materials. Being not mandatory here may mean that you get constant bullying because you must be hiding something.
They have removed the backdoor paragraph, and inserted a new one that states that scanning is entirely voluntary and best effort, and also state that the EU cannot force them to scan.
As far as the mass surveillance scanning goes, it has completely been removed, and what remains is still the mandatory age checks, which might be problematic.
From reading the specification, it appears to be reasonably well designed, where identification is handled by authorities, and the requesting party cannot get your identification details, only send an "is the user of this session older than 18". The verifier cannot see which site the request comes from, and you identify yourself in the session, and a reply goes back to the requester with a "yes/no" answer.
So, it at least appears to be simply an age check, and not some sort of surveillance program to stalk your online browsing habits.
I feel like this will just incentivise the creation of privately run federated messaging systems. Powerful people will always be protected, any smart people will run fed messengers for their private stuff and normie tech for normie comms. This power will just turn into another form of control. As always, the only losers will be the average citizens.
you people need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that only a Trumpian type regime could possibly have any interest in finding and incapacitating “enemies of the state”.
Misleading title, the council approves their mandate for negotiations with parliament. It’s still a long way to go before it turns into law and I think it’s rather unpopular in parliament.
Terrorists are winning. If husband wanted to control wife's phone, read all messages, that is jail time in many countries. But if bureaucrats in nice suits want to abuse Europeans all at once, then it is fine.
Germany get you s*t together and issue arrest warrants for this lot. They seem to be breaking German laws.
I think it's just the trialogue left, so still some distance but comfortably past halfway to becoming valid law.
There's been so much drama over the years about this proposal from the commission I doubt von der Leyen will want to fight to get the scanning back in.
Democracy worked well here. The executive wanted more power (once again), the parliament refused, twice, despite _a lot_ of lobbying and pressure from the executive branch. Good job to the tech industry for counterlobbying (i'm not saying that often i swear), good job us for mobilizing, and also la quadrature and other NGO privacy watchdog for mobilization that allowed the EU parliement to resist somewhat, and forced a compromise that will any overreach tentative in the hand of judges.
What europe needs to be careful of is that the EUCJ keep its power. I _know_ people on both side of the political spectrum dislike judges (because they defend the status quo for the left, and the rule of law for the right) but multiple time this past 3 years i've seen mediatic assaults on EUCJ and ECHR that expend their political power again and again and again. We have to keep executive power from limiting judiciary power. Already executive branches are powering through legislative in a lot of country (France, UK, US, and EU which isn't a country but have similar institution), we absolutely have to keep the third branch as a check against government overreach.
The crux is in those „risk assessments”, to be approved by authorities. IIUC those authorities will be able to designate e.g. Signal „high risk” and slap penalties unless they „mitigate” the risk. Hard to tell what will happen without seeing final regulation.
I am ashamed to be Danish. Where are the mass protests of hundreds of thousands, the mass walkouts from our workplaces until our government at last respects our human dignity?
Our government has today turned the EU into a tool for total surveillance I don't know if there can be any return from. Our democratic processes have been abused, and our politicians shown to be nothing but craven, self-interested agents of control.
The trick is that because they could not pass the proposal that enforces message scanning, now this proposal defines "high risk activities" and in the case of high risk activity, the national authorities can force someone to comply (i.e. start to scan messages, block, stop activity).
High risk classification is at the end of the text.
Some highlights of what is defined as high risk, and thus can be forced to go through mandatory scanning or forbidden:
- Encrypted messaging follows closely due to privacy concerns and the potential for misuse. Posting and sharing of multimedia content are also high-risk activities, as they can easily disseminate harmful material.
- The platform lacks functionalities to prevent users from saving harmful content (by making recordings, screenshots etc.) for the purpose of the dissemination thereof (such as for example not allowing recording and screenshotting content shared by minors)
- Possibility to use peer-to-peer downloading (allows direct sharing of content without using centralised servers)
- The platforms’ storage functionalities and/or the legal framework of the
country of storage do not allow sharing information with law enforcement
authorities.
- The platform lacks functionalities to limit the number of downloads per user
to reduce the dissemination of harmful content.
- Making design choices such as ensuring that E2EE is opt-in by default, rather than opt-out would require people to choose E2EE should they wish to use it, therefore allowing certain detection technologies to work for communication between users that have not opted in to E2EE
Also, a lot of these points do not sound like they are about the safety of children
- Platforms lack a premoderation system, allowing potentially harmful content
to be posted without oversight or moderation
- Frequent use of anonymous accounts
- Frequent Pseudonymous behavior
- Frequent creation of temporary accounts:
- Lack of identity verification tools
Based on the light of the proposal, Hacker News is very dangerous place and need to have its identity verification and CSAM policies fixed, or face the upcoming fines in the EU.
> - Making design choices such as ensuring that E2EE is opt-in by default, rather than opt-out would require people to choose E2EE should they wish to use it, therefore allowing certain detection technologies to work for communication between users that have not opted in to E2EE
So you make it so that when the user starts the application you ask them "Your current configuration allows government, and probably some hackers as well, to see your messages. Do you want to enable encryption? Your government's suggestion is that you should say 'No' here. That's also what the foreign intelligence agencies suggest" "Yes, enable encryption" "No". That's clearly opt-in, you even provide the government's recommendation. And of course you then ask that whenever they open the application if they selected "No", we have learned that it's completely fine to keep asking same question from the user.
Oh, and make sure that the other party is clearly aware that the other side has not enabled encryption.
Is there still a loophole for politicians not to be tracked? Because if so, some people will make a lot of money by creating a political party and turning citizens into politicians for yearly fee and thus bypassing this whole law.
You can read the proposal and found out, if you're interested.
> 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.
Sad to see Europe morph from postal secrecy to chat control. I can’t imagine 19th century intellectuals would do anything other than laugh in the face of censors who would suggest that the governments need to read personal correspondence to protect children and/or national interests against Prussia/Russia/China.
Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?
The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
The answer is pretty simple. This decision isn't "the EU".
The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent).
This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it through EU institutions, and might now try to override the EU parliament about it. Just because national (elected) governments are pushing it through EU institutions doesn't mean you should blame "the EU". It wasn't the "Eurocrats".
EU (and preceding organisations since European Coal and Steel Community) were created so that there will be no war in Europe. How exactly this objective is achieved is of secondary importance. It is economic institution, because someone calculated that this will be best shot, but if (or when) calculation credibly shifts (for example, that it would be better for them to be a religion, a feudal system, or a federation -- whatever), it will morph into something else.
I'd say that it has 100% fulfilled its primary goal that there is no military conflict between major European states for like 80 years and counting, which is longest period ever recorded and a historical anomaly. The means of how it was executed is obviously a matter of debate, mistakes were made etc., but we over here generally make love, not war.
the entire point is to build a country called Europe
and the EU is built on the "Monnet method", where it slowly ratchets forward taking more power from national parliaments and giving it to the EU council/commission
(with a useless parliament there to make it appear democratic)
the UK leaving is the only example of the ratchet being reversed
> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?
That is not the case.
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
> The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?
>How has it morphed into a wierd political institution
Von der Leyen, an autocratic fascist that is ruining this continent. She failed to push her agenda in Germany so she "failed upwards". Even how she got this position was highly controversial and went against the top candidate principle. The EU commission is exceeding their competencies. The EU is not democratic, there is no parliamentary oversight, the parliament can't even introduce legislative proposals. No one can vote for the EU commission, only the parliament can vote for or against all the proposed candidates (not one by one). Parliament is essentially a rubber stamp for the commission.
Seeing this as an opportunity: this further solidifies the need for opensource and decentralisation.
Chat apps should be opensource, E2E encrypted, and decentralised. In 2025 we still don't have that in any meaningly manner - Signal perhaps comes the closest, but it's centralised and controlled by a US organisation. The moats are deep within the chat app space, and getting the "network effect" is going to be really tough.
I know it's the recognized term for 'officially designated authority', but 'competent authority' seems to conflate two traits that do not necessarily co-habit.
Just read it as ”we have the competence to make decisions with authority on this issue”, though we all wish it always meant ”we have authority to make competent decisions on this issue” xD
Laymen actually do care. But mass media does the sanewashing, and you can’t blame the average Joe of not having a deep understanding of what this entails and that it is not to protect the children.
Governmental interests benefit if we blame ourselves and other citizens for this shit passing. It is clear that modern democracies are people in power (which includes the media) vs the masses.
How is it possible this thing can just keep coming back and back? There should be a law that gives these kinds of bills a cooldown period of 2 years or so that prevents them from being reintroduced with slightly different wording.
Because the EU citizens keep voting for those politicians. It’s as simple as that. There are dozens of different parties in each EU country, but people keep voting for parties that push chat control.
Why follow the EU's press release instead of stating what's happening? The EU parliament voted - many times. They voted AGAINST having this law at all. The EU council is now threatening to fully override parliament, but "gives parliament another chance" to agree, in hopes this makes the member states more likely to cooperate.
More correct would be to state the in power EU governments have decided to use the EU council power to override the will of both the EU parliament and the member states' own parliaments - for now, by threatening parliament with the override.
The EU parliament and the head of states that comprise the EU council are elected by the EU citizens. Why is there such discordance between the two? Isn’t it mostly the same people from the same parties?
This is completely incorrect, the Parliament, the Council, and the Commission always come up with their own version of a proposed regulation (the Commission because they get to create new proposals, the other two because they have to react to comission proposal). Then all three parties sit down and negotiate a final text that becomes law.
The path from position to actual implementation (details) is long
And you can bet there's still a lot of opposition of people (with actual involvement in the legislative process)
And legal hurdles for implementation as well
(this all reminds me of the discussion around the copyright directive where people here were decrying it was going to be the end of memes. So, how did that go again?)
Taking the reasons at face value (for the sake of argument) I guess what I'm confused about is why this would be necessary. I would think there were already laws/regulations/liability reasons/etc requiring companies to make efforts to ensure they're not hosting CP and other such things? Am I wrong?
Honest question: let's say I get an email and encrypt it with a highly secure key, or maybe I just encrypt a file and send it through WhatsApp. That might not be as easy or secure as a double ratchet, but, is it against chat control?
This is a major win! Basically: It's now (still) voluntary for services to implement scanning for CSAM material. Not mandatory. End-to-end encryption will continue to be legal.
Source: Swedish national public service radio (Sveriges Radio) interviewing Jon Karlung, CEO of Bahnhof AB - a major privacy-centric and politically outspoken ISP in Sweden. Think XS4ALL (RIP) but in Sweden. Here's the interview: https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/efter-flera-ar-eu-overe... (Swedish speech).
Here's their blog post (in Swedish, use browser translation tools):
One thing with chat control I don't get is why can't it be vetoed by a single member? That doesn't seem like part of regular trade policy competency of the EU
I just want to reiterate that in Germany getting convicted of gang raping a 15 year old (and stealing her phone and purse and filming the rape) is something which gets you probation. Yes, the crime was proven, there was no doubt about the guilt.
In this context putting the entirety of the population under the suspicion of facilitating child rape is completely and utterly deranged.
They could have subpoenaed the unencrypted Gmail accounts of Maxwell, Epstein and Barak like two decades ago. They can still subpoena Barak's Gmail and other accounts, especially after Giuffre's allegations about "a well known prime minister".
Given how badly the EU just folded on GDPR, data protection and AI laws (which were good laws generally imo, and tragic to see useful exercise of sovereignty erased), I want to have hope that this might not stand.
But unfortunately I feel like the big tech interests probably somewhat want this happen, are happy to hand the citizenry over to the state. That we won't hear much from them over this all. With some notable Signal sized / Medium Tech exceptions.
It sure does seem like there's a huge legitimacy crisis the EU council is creating around itself by going so far against the will of the people, by intruding so forcibly into literally everyone's life.
In a nutshell, there will be no more intrusions into chats, but only obligations for the companies to provide preferential channels for victims of these crimes.
And companies considered high-risk will have to "contribute to the development of technologies to mitigate the risks relating to their services." Which sooner or later will involve another attempt at client-side scanning.
"High risk" providers will be obligated to "contribute" technologies "to mitigate." Seems like a doublespeak way of saying enforced decryption or enforced backdoors.
mrtksn|3 months ago
Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting out of it will not be easy I assume.
I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and requiring risk assessment sounds like "Fine, whatever don't do it if you don't want to do it but if something bad happens it's on you". May be fair to some extent, i.e. Reddit and Telegram can decide how much they trust their users not to run pedo business and be on the hook for it.
On the other hand, it is a backdoor and if the governments go crazy like they did in some other countries where high level politicians are implicated with actual pedophiles and have a tendency for authoritarianism Europe may end up having checking user chats for "enemies of the state" instead of CSAM materials. Being not mandatory here may mean that you get constant bullying because you must be hiding something.
tux3|3 months ago
One has to take rights away slowly, otherwise the frog jumps before you can boil it.
8fingerlouie|3 months ago
As far as the mass surveillance scanning goes, it has completely been removed, and what remains is still the mandatory age checks, which might be problematic.
From reading the specification, it appears to be reasonably well designed, where identification is handled by authorities, and the requesting party cannot get your identification details, only send an "is the user of this session older than 18". The verifier cannot see which site the request comes from, and you identify yourself in the session, and a reply goes back to the requester with a "yes/no" answer.
So, it at least appears to be simply an age check, and not some sort of surveillance program to stalk your online browsing habits.
bossyTeacher|3 months ago
binary132|3 months ago
johanvts|3 months ago
varispeed|3 months ago
Germany get you s*t together and issue arrest warrants for this lot. They seem to be breaking German laws.
SiempreViernes|3 months ago
There's been so much drama over the years about this proposal from the commission I doubt von der Leyen will want to fight to get the scanning back in.
dang|3 months ago
jasonvorhe|3 months ago
Good old democracy at work.
orwin|3 months ago
What europe needs to be careful of is that the EUCJ keep its power. I _know_ people on both side of the political spectrum dislike judges (because they defend the status quo for the left, and the rule of law for the right) but multiple time this past 3 years i've seen mediatic assaults on EUCJ and ECHR that expend their political power again and again and again. We have to keep executive power from limiting judiciary power. Already executive branches are powering through legislative in a lot of country (France, UK, US, and EU which isn't a country but have similar institution), we absolutely have to keep the third branch as a check against government overreach.
akomtu|3 months ago
throw_a_grenade|3 months ago
emptysongglass|3 months ago
Our government has today turned the EU into a tool for total surveillance I don't know if there can be any return from. Our democratic processes have been abused, and our politicians shown to be nothing but craven, self-interested agents of control.
sam_lowry_|3 months ago
You risk nothing, do you?
miohtama|3 months ago
Here is the actual text: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15318-2025-...
High risk classification is at the end of the text.
Some highlights of what is defined as high risk, and thus can be forced to go through mandatory scanning or forbidden:
- Encrypted messaging follows closely due to privacy concerns and the potential for misuse. Posting and sharing of multimedia content are also high-risk activities, as they can easily disseminate harmful material.
- The platform lacks functionalities to prevent users from saving harmful content (by making recordings, screenshots etc.) for the purpose of the dissemination thereof (such as for example not allowing recording and screenshotting content shared by minors)
- Possibility to use peer-to-peer downloading (allows direct sharing of content without using centralised servers)
- The platforms’ storage functionalities and/or the legal framework of the country of storage do not allow sharing information with law enforcement authorities.
- The platform lacks functionalities to limit the number of downloads per user to reduce the dissemination of harmful content.
- Making design choices such as ensuring that E2EE is opt-in by default, rather than opt-out would require people to choose E2EE should they wish to use it, therefore allowing certain detection technologies to work for communication between users that have not opted in to E2EE
Also, a lot of these points do not sound like they are about the safety of children
- Platforms lack a premoderation system, allowing potentially harmful content to be posted without oversight or moderation
- Frequent use of anonymous accounts
- Frequent Pseudonymous behavior
- Frequent creation of temporary accounts:
- Lack of identity verification tools
Based on the light of the proposal, Hacker News is very dangerous place and need to have its identity verification and CSAM policies fixed, or face the upcoming fines in the EU.
buzer|3 months ago
So you make it so that when the user starts the application you ask them "Your current configuration allows government, and probably some hackers as well, to see your messages. Do you want to enable encryption? Your government's suggestion is that you should say 'No' here. That's also what the foreign intelligence agencies suggest" "Yes, enable encryption" "No". That's clearly opt-in, you even provide the government's recommendation. And of course you then ask that whenever they open the application if they selected "No", we have learned that it's completely fine to keep asking same question from the user.
Oh, and make sure that the other party is clearly aware that the other side has not enabled encryption.
general1465|3 months ago
snet0|3 months ago
> 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.
barbazoo|3 months ago
LudwigNagasena|3 months ago
aestetix|3 months ago
The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
concinds|3 months ago
The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent).
This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it through EU institutions, and might now try to override the EU parliament about it. Just because national (elected) governments are pushing it through EU institutions doesn't mean you should blame "the EU". It wasn't the "Eurocrats".
throw_a_grenade|3 months ago
I'd say that it has 100% fulfilled its primary goal that there is no military conflict between major European states for like 80 years and counting, which is longest period ever recorded and a historical anomaly. The means of how it was executed is obviously a matter of debate, mistakes were made etc., but we over here generally make love, not war.
hshdhdhj4444|3 months ago
You simply need to look at the precipitous decline in privacy in the UK after it left the EU to see some of the most stark examples of this.
surgical_fire|3 months ago
The commissioners that propose laws are appointed by each national government. The national governments of each member state is all in on this.
NATO is not a political institution. It is a defense treaty (this one completely outside the realm of democracy).
blibble|3 months ago
the entire point is to build a country called Europe
and the EU is built on the "Monnet method", where it slowly ratchets forward taking more power from national parliaments and giving it to the EU council/commission
(with a useless parliament there to make it appear democratic)
the UK leaving is the only example of the ratchet being reversed
saubeidl|3 months ago
That is not the case.
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
> The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a body that decides anything?
pessimizer|3 months ago
NATO is a military alliance, not a government.
sunaookami|3 months ago
Von der Leyen, an autocratic fascist that is ruining this continent. She failed to push her agenda in Germany so she "failed upwards". Even how she got this position was highly controversial and went against the top candidate principle. The EU commission is exceeding their competencies. The EU is not democratic, there is no parliamentary oversight, the parliament can't even introduce legislative proposals. No one can vote for the EU commission, only the parliament can vote for or against all the proposed candidates (not one by one). Parliament is essentially a rubber stamp for the commission.
I could be jailed for this comment btw.
Flere-Imsaho|3 months ago
Chat apps should be opensource, E2E encrypted, and decentralised. In 2025 we still don't have that in any meaningly manner - Signal perhaps comes the closest, but it's centralised and controlled by a US organisation. The moats are deep within the chat app space, and getting the "network effect" is going to be really tough.
jacknews|3 months ago
pavlov|3 months ago
Zaiberia|3 months ago
darqis|3 months ago
And no one cares. No one. There is no outcry, no protest, no shitstorm. Nothing.
I don't understand.
Do people not care if everyone is able to read and analyze, store their private communication?
sph|3 months ago
Governmental interests benefit if we blame ourselves and other citizens for this shit passing. It is clear that modern democracies are people in power (which includes the media) vs the masses.
johnwayne666|3 months ago
throw_a_grenade|3 months ago
deafpolygon|3 months ago
Aeolun|3 months ago
LudwigNagasena|3 months ago
spwa4|3 months ago
More correct would be to state the in power EU governments have decided to use the EU council power to override the will of both the EU parliament and the member states' own parliaments - for now, by threatening parliament with the override.
LudwigNagasena|3 months ago
SiempreViernes|3 months ago
raverbashing|3 months ago
The path from position to actual implementation (details) is long
And you can bet there's still a lot of opposition of people (with actual involvement in the legislative process)
And legal hurdles for implementation as well
(this all reminds me of the discussion around the copyright directive where people here were decrying it was going to be the end of memes. So, how did that go again?)
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
squigz|3 months ago
jacquesm|3 months ago
HeavyStorm|3 months ago
lysace|3 months ago
Source: Swedish national public service radio (Sveriges Radio) interviewing Jon Karlung, CEO of Bahnhof AB - a major privacy-centric and politically outspoken ISP in Sweden. Think XS4ALL (RIP) but in Sweden. Here's the interview: https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/efter-flera-ar-eu-overe... (Swedish speech).
Here's their blog post (in Swedish, use browser translation tools):
https://bahnhof.se/2025/11/26/eu-bromsar-chat-control/
IsTom|3 months ago
nickff|3 months ago
wnevets|3 months ago
igleria|3 months ago
permo-w|3 months ago
constantcrying|3 months ago
In this context putting the entirety of the population under the suspicion of facilitating child rape is completely and utterly deranged.
thomasjeff1|3 months ago
bgwalter|3 months ago
I have the feeling this will not happen.
Xelbair|3 months ago
jauntywundrkind|3 months ago
But unfortunately I feel like the big tech interests probably somewhat want this happen, are happy to hand the citizenry over to the state. That we won't hear much from them over this all. With some notable Signal sized / Medium Tech exceptions.
It sure does seem like there's a huge legitimacy crisis the EU council is creating around itself by going so far against the will of the people, by intruding so forcibly into literally everyone's life.
tonoto|3 months ago
ChrisArchitect|3 months ago
mseri|3 months ago
If any admin is around, they should probably be merged. This is the other one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46055863
giuliomagnifico|3 months ago
debugnik|3 months ago
sph|3 months ago
dmitrygr|3 months ago
throw20251127|3 months ago
[deleted]
thecopy|3 months ago
The EU ostensibly wants to improve innovation, i wonder how these new assessment regulations help with that, especially for SME and startups.
halJordan|3 months ago