Everyone who originally proposed this or otherwise helped in drafting this should be thoroughly investigated under suspicion of foreign affiliation. Chat Control doesn’t just start the EU’s transformation into a surveillance state. It also weakens its digital defenses. No matter how you look at it, this is treason both towards the European people, as well as towards the individual countries and the Union as a whole.
EU officials are, incidentally, exempt from chat monitoring – which is quite convenient for someone like von der Leyen. Their communication is explicitly NOT to be monitored. The mere fact that those who drafted this law don’t want it to apply to them tells you everything you need to know about it.
So you’re telling me the one person who’s been making deals behind closed doors (illegal), and then ‘accidentally’ deleting all messages regarding said deals (also illegal) will be exempt from having all their communication scanned?
These pathetic morons think they’ll be safe through this exemption. In reality these deliberate security holes will affect everyone. How will these morons be safe when every person they have contact with IRL is a walking microphone for every foreign intelligence agency?
people miss the most important problem with this. chat control is a fascist tool that can and will be used against us minorities. this is especially dangerous when more and more countries are starting to lean right.
hitler would have had a field day with this kind of tech.
All nations are following North Korea’s lead.
North Korea is a testing ground to see what rulers can get away with. It won’t be long until every country operates like it.
Isn’t North Korea already a dangerous dictatorship with its citizens in a vice? I don’t think their benevolent leader needs to “get away” with any of the shit he does at this point, or what do you say? Is there any chance of overthrowing him?
Danes are fascist, they pushed it through.
danes are sucking thiels cock for their own wicked reasons.
as we’ve always said; never trust a dane!
Danes have been quite xenophobic lately.
It also makes what the Stasi in Socialist East Germany did to its citizens look harmless in comparison. It’s literally Big Brother, but you carry him around with you.
Now let’s hope Parliament will still vote against it.
Caling your MEP is more efficient.
I’m 99% sure this was made to combat people sharing CP on Matrix.
Does anyone know if it will have any effect?
Matrix will not be affected. At all.
CP is just a pretext here.
this also does nothing to pgp encrypted email, or criminal with a brain cell capable of encrypting the files before sending it
Not even Signal saves
Matrix would be the best alternative
Why? Why is the loss of such a significant amount of privacy necessary?
Literally pedophiles.
Allegedly.
It isn’t.
It isn’t it’s just an excuse to put people you don’t like in some kind of hole where they rot to death.
Countries which support the implementation of Chat Control:
Spain, Romania, Portugal, Malta Lithuania, Hungary, Ireland, France, Denmark, Croatia, Cyprus, and Bulgaria.
Countries that are undecided:
Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Slovakia, and Sweden.
Countries which oppose Chat Control:
Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, Germany, Estonia, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Austria
Can someone help me understand the likely outcome in countries that implement chat control? Will those governments force Google and Apple to remove apps that do not comply (e.g. Signal) from their official app stores? Will those governments somehow detect users who find workarounds and go after them? I figure most people in those countries will shrug their shoulders and move on with their lives, but how will this impact citizens who do not wish to comply?
“This list is outdated, see here fightchatcontrol.eu”
Fuck, only 4 are against
And Italy is one of them??? Lmao
I know, last time i checked It was indecided and im Happy its against now.
I Hope more countries Will shoft beacouse its not looking good
misleading headline, this isn’t a list of countries in which the law will (if it passes) be different (it won’t be, it’s an EU law, so will be the same in all EU countries), it’s a list of countries that currently support/oppose the law
It isn’t misleading (that’d be a technically true headline, which this isn’t). This is a downright lie, or as some might say, “fake news”.
(it won’t be, it’s an EU law, so will be the same in all EU countries)
This is not true btw. It’s not a mandatory law, and if you read the news about this the last 3 weeks, you would know that.
EU laws are not automatically mandatory. That’s not how it works at all.
The law will be the same in all EU countries, including whichever parts you think will be “not mandatory” (I did read those news articles and am fully aware that mandatory scanning is no longer on the table).
OK I’m getting a flip phone
I thought making calls and sending SMS was one of the least secure things you could do regarding communication? That secure and encrypted communication with messaging apps was the only way.
Now we have nothing. 😐
At least if you just do phone calls the attack surface is reduced… They can scan your calls maybe, but not your entire chat history with all of your contacts and give it to an AI which could profile you based on that + you are not scanned on everything else you do on your phone / locked into proprietary ecosystems.
The ideal would just be using a Linux platform and using something like xmpp, but who are you gonna convince to use it? People use what they are used to use, if it’s not popular messaging apps is phone calls… And now it seems a more private alternative…
Just get an Pixel 9a from a local shop, install GrapheneOS on it and use it as your primary.
Can confirm, the 9s are the best phones. Love my Pro.
Is there something we can do to effectively oppose that shit ?
Maybe start here? https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
For years the plan was to make this scanning mandatory. In early November 2025, however, the Danish government amended the text: scanning is now “voluntary” for individual EU states to decide upon. That small word change was enough for the 27 EU countries to agree on November 26.
If chat control would have been made mandatory, you can bet (and i’d be willing to bet a lot of money on it) that you’re going to have AfD in germany and FPÖ in austria (since they’re already pretty anti-EU) making a lot of noise about how evil the EU is for infringing on people’s privacy. (And they would be right about this, as much as i don’t like to agree with them.) This would give them more votes, than they already have.
Making it voluntary is a clever trick of the EU to not make yourself extremely unpopular among the population. Well done, i’d say.
It seems the article is misinterpreting things. It’s not that it’s “voluntary for individual EU states”… but rather “voluntary” for service providers. The service providers don’t have to implement this chat detection if they don’t want to.
The thing is that if they don’t pass something like this, then by April 2026 a bunch of current services that are already doing CP detection would be breaking the law, since the temporary derogation of the e-Privacy Directive will expire. But I don’t think this affects services like signal/simplex who voluntarily choose to not try to detect it.
If they work anything like the far right in the U.S., they’ll raise hell about it til they get elected then implement it themselves.
Orban’s Hungary is in favour, after all.
Exactly the play, not just in America, but all capitalist backed politicians. Left and right wing
That’s weird, our fascists in France are all against privacy, unless it’s theirs.
Wow, this is bad. I thought this was over when Germany chose not to support it. Apparently not!
I believe Germany is now in favor of this new proposal, according to https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
Only Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Poland are against. This seems to be based on “leaked documents from the September 12 meeting of the EU Council’s Law Enforcement Working Party”.
Show is not over until the fat lady sings.
It’s kind of unclear what “voluntary” means. Is it voluntary for countries to enforce? Is it voluntary for companies to scan chats?
The later. However, they could still be fines for not doing what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”, whatever the fuck that can mean when talking about illegal.content
Where is this explained? the article might be wrong then, because it does state the opposite:
scanning is now “voluntary” for individual EU states to decide upon
It makes it sound like it’s each state/country the one deciding, and that the reason “companies can still be pressured to scan chats to avoid heavy fines or being blocked in the EU” was because of those countries forcing them.
Who’s the one deciding what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”? if it’s each country the ones deciding this, then it’s each country who can opt to enforce chat scanning… so to me that means the former, not the latter.
In fact, isn’t the latter already a thing? …I believe companies can already scan chats voluntarily, as long as they include this in their terms, and many do. A clear example is AI chats.
I recommend reading the dutch debate : https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/plenaire_verslagen/detail/2025-2026/17
And yes, the latter is currently a thing (but in a weaker form) but will no longer be allowed in april 2026, which is why this law is getting pushed so hard. Currently chats can be asked by police/interpol/… But they need good reasons, and the results can be varying because chat platforms like signal do not keep chat messages/stuff.
The new law forces them to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements. It just allows for ‘any system to get the needed info’, it no longer says chat scanning is needed directly, but is rather indirectly which is as stupid and bad as before.Thanks for the link, and the clarification (I didn’t know about april 2026)… although it’s still confusing, to be honest. In your link they seem to allude to this just being a way to maintain a voluntary detection that is “already part of the current practice”…
If that were the case, then at which point “the new law forces [chat providers] to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements”? will services like signal, simplex, etc. really be forced to monitor the contents of the chats?
I don’t find in the link discussion about situations in which providers will be forced to do chat detection. My understanding from reading that transcript is that there’s no forced requirement on the providers to do this, or am I misunderstanding?
Just for reference, below is the relevant section translated (emphasis mine).
In what form does voluntary detection by providers take place, she asks. The exception to the e-Privacy Directive makes it possible for services to detect online sexual images and grooming on their services. The choice to do this lies with the providers of services themselves. They need to inform users in a clear, explicit and understandable way about the fact that they are doing this. This can be done, for example, through the general terms and conditions that must be accepted by the user. This is the current practice. Many platforms are already doing this and investing in improving detection techniques. For voluntary detection, think of Apple Child Safety — which is built into every iPhone by default — Instagram Teen Accounts and the protection settings for minors built into Snapchat and other large platforms. We want services to take responsibility for ourselves. That is an important starting point. According to the current proposal, this possibility would be made permanent.
My impression from reading the dutch, is that they are opposing this because of the lack of “periodic review” power that the EU would have if they make this voluntary detection a permanent thing. So they aren’t worried about services like signal/simplex which wouldn’t do detection anyway, but about the services that might opt to actually do detection but might do so without proper care for privacy/security… or that will use detection for purposes that don’t warrant it. At least that’s what I understand from the below statement:
Nevertheless, the government sees an important risk in permanently making this voluntary detection. By permanently making the voluntary detection, the periodic review of the balance between the purpose of the detection and privacy and security considerations disappears. That is a concern for the cabinet. As a result, we as the Netherlands cannot fully support the proposal.
Id need to look for it again, but i remember reading she was saying that the current proposal is vague in what it sees as required to prevent what she calls risks. I remember them asking her multiple times if she was against a law to prevent csa and the sharing there off, in which she replied multiple times that she was not, but that the law was too vague about what it constitutes as necessary to prevent it. Did i dream it? ><
Edit: found it!
Mevrouw Kathmann (GroenLinks-PvdA): Het is niet per se alleen zo dat de huidige praktijk wordt voortgezet. Er zitten bijvoorbeeld ook zinnen in het voorstel die aangeven dat álle risico's moeten worden weggenomen. Het is ongelofelijk vaag, een heel grijs gebied, wat dat betekent. Dat is één. Dat is echt een heel groot risico. Daarnaast noemde de heer Van Houwelingen net al het punt van de leeftijdsverificatie. We hebben niet goed met elkaar kunnen bespreken wat daar nou precies in voorligt en hoe wij daar verder mee om moeten gaan. Dit zijn twee dingen die ik er nu zo uitpik.
Illegal content: anything that they don’t like.
deleted by creator
If this came to Canada, my sister and I will be using Briar.
