ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

2025-09-2516:011102631metalhearf.fr

The EU is pushing legislation that would scan all our private messages, even in encrypted apps.

The European Union wants to force tech companies to scan your private messages & images, even in your favorite encrypted apps.

The 🇪🇺 European Union is advancing legislation that could fundamentally change how we communicate online. ChatControl would require all messaging platforms to automatically scan their users’ private messages and images.

Yes, even encrypted ones like Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. No, you can’t opt out.

This isn’t just another privacy policy update you can ignore. If passed, this EU regulation (strongest and most binding legal instrument in EU law) would automatically apply to all member states without any wiggle room for national interpretation. It would even override constitutional protections for communication privacy and establish unprecedented mass surveillance of private communications.

The official justification? Fighting child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Protecting children is undeniably crucial, but the proposed methods would eliminate digital privacy for 450 million Europeans and set a global precedent for mass surveillance.

This surveillance trend extends beyond Europe: 🇨🇭 Switzerland is advancing metadata retention requirements, the 🇬🇧 UK is implementing comprehensive age verification systems and now the 🇪🇺 EU proposes to scan every private message. Each initiative is positioned as child protection policy, but the implications reach far beyond their stated goals.

What is ChatControl #

ChatControl is what critics call the EU’s proposed Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse, also known as CSAR (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation).

The proposal builds on surveillance techniques already deployed by major tech companies. Meta analyzes all Facebook Messenger conversations and unencrypted WhatsApp data (profile photos, group descriptions). Apple announced similar scanning for iCloud content in 2021, though they later suspended the program.

This turns voluntary corporate surveillance into mandatory government-ordered scanning. A temporary 2021 EU regulation allowed platforms to scan content voluntarily for three years. That authorization expired in 2024, which is why CSAR was proposed. The temporary regulation merely permitted scanning; CSAR would make detection obligatory under certain conditions.

There’s also the Roadmap for Lawful Access to Data which has an even bigger goal: making all our digital data readable by authorities upon request. We’ll dive deeper into this broader surveillance agenda later.

Scope and Coverage #

CSAR casts an extremely wide net. The regulation would apply to all interpersonal communication service providers, not just obvious targets like Signal, WhatsApp, or Telegram, but also:

  • Email providers
  • Dating apps
  • Gaming platforms with chat features
  • Social media platforms
  • File hosting services (Google Drive, iCloud, DropBox…)
  • App stores
  • Even small community hosting services run by associations

This means virtually any digital service that allows people to communicate or share content would fall under surveillance requirements. The scope extends far beyond what most people imagine when they hear messaging apps.

How it Works #

ChatControl relies on Client-Side Scanning. Your device becomes a monitoring station that analyzes your content before encryption happens.

This represents a fundamental shift away from traditional surveillance that intercepts messages during transmission. With ChatControl, every message gets automatically checked, assuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent and effectively reversing the presumption of innocence.

Technical Implementation #

How does Chat Control work?

The system would automatically scan for three categories of content before encryption:

  1. Known illegal content: Images or videos already catalogued by authorities as CSAM. Your device creates hash fingerprints of your content and compares them against databases of known illegal material.

  2. Unknown potential content: Photos or videos that might constitute CSAM but haven’t been previously identified. AI algorithms analyze visual elements (like exposed skin) to flag potentially problematic content based on statistical models.

  3. Grooming behavior: Text analysis using AI to identify communication patterns that match predefined indicators of adults soliciting children. This involves scanning the actual content of your private conversations.

If something gets flagged, it automatically gets reported to authorities. No human checks it first, that would be impossible given the billions of daily messages. This would be mandatory for all messaging platforms in 🇪🇺 Europe.

Why This Breaks Encryption #

Claims that client-side scanning is compatible with encryption are misleading.

ChatControl doesn’t break encryption, it bypasses it entirely. While your messages still get encrypted during transmission, the system defeats the purpose of end-to-end encryption by examining your content before it gets encrypted. True E2EE means only you and your recipient can read messages: no government, no company, no algorithm should peek inside. This surveillance violates that principle by inserting monitoring at the source.

Privacy-focused companies like Proton point out this approach might be worse than encryption backdoors. Backdoors give authorities access to communications you share with others. This system examines everything on your device, whether you share it or not.

Your encrypted messaging app becomes spyware. Supporters claim this protects privacy because scanning happens locally, but surveillance built into your device makes it impossible to escape.

Governance Structure #

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The proposal would create a centralized EU Centre on Child Sexual Abuse to receive all reports, but EU institutions wouldn’t control the scanning technology itself.

Service providers would face additional obligations beyond scanning. They would need to conduct risk assessments to evaluate and minimize the potential for illegal content sharing on their platforms. This requires collecting detailed information about their users (age groups, content types) that many privacy-focused services deliberately avoid gathering.

The regulation also pushes for mandatory age verification systems. No viable, privacy-respecting age verification technology currently exists. These systems would eliminate online anonymity, requiring users to prove their identity to access digital services.

Rules for thee, but not for me: While ordinary Europeans would have all their messages scanned, the proposed legislation includes exemptions for government accounts used for “national security purposes, maintaining law and order or military purposes”. Convenient.

ChatControl fits into a broader political strategy. Since the 1990s crypto wars, certain states have argued that privacy-protecting technologies, especially encryption, obstruct police investigations. These technologies are designed to do exactly that, protect everyone’s ability to control their expression and communication.

The European Commission’s Roadmap for Lawful Access to Data wants to make all digital data accessible to authorities by 2030. This involves systematically weakening encryption rather than simply bypassing it.

Edward Snowden’s revelations ten years ago led to widespread adoption of encryption and institutional consensus supporting the right to encrypted communication. But governments remain frustrated by their inability to access private communications. We’re seeing a return to authoritarian positions using terrorism, organized crime and child exploitation as justifications for undermining encryption.

🇩🇰 Danish Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard, chief architect of the current ChatControl proposal, recently stated: “We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone’s civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services.” Well, there you have it folks: encrypted communication isn’t a civil liberty anymore. You cypherpunks were wrong all along. /s

Similarly in 🇫🇷 France, both Bernard Cazeneuve and Emmanuel Macron have explicitly stated their desire to control encrypted messaging, seeking to pierce the privacy of millions who use these services.

CSAR provides the perfect opportunity for member states to finally design and implement a generalized surveillance tool for monitoring population communications. Crossing this threshold means eliminating all confidentiality from communications using digital infrastructure.

False Positives #

These scanning systems get it wrong most of the time. Studies show approximately 80% of algorithmic reports are false positives: innocent content incorrectly flagged as illegal. 🇮🇪 Irish law enforcement confirms this: only 20.3% of 4,192 automated reports actually contained illegal material.

This is fine.

Even with hypothetical 99% accuracy (which current systems don’t achieve), scanning billions of daily messages would generate millions of false accusations. Police resources would be overwhelmed investigating innocent families sharing vacation photos while real crimes go uninvestigated.

Innocent content regularly triggers these systems: family photos, teenage conversations, educational materials and medical communications. Consider this real case: a father was automatically reported to police after sending photos of his child’s medical condition to their doctor. Google’s algorithms flagged this legitimate medical consultation as potential abuse, permanently closed his account and refused all appeals. His digital life was destroyed by an algorithm that couldn’t distinguish between medical care and criminal activity.

Scientific Opposition #

For the third time in three years, over 600 cryptographers, security researchers and scientists across 35 countries have co-signed an open letter explaining why this mass scanning project is “technically unfeasible”, constitutes a “danger to democracy” and would “completely compromise” the security and privacy of all European citizens.

The letter emphasizes that client-side scanning cannot distinguish between legal and illegal content without fundamentally breaking encryption and creating vulnerabilities that malicious actors can exploit.

Meanwhile, the Commission has provided no serious studies demonstrating the effectiveness, reliability or appropriateness of these intrusive measures for actually protecting children. Industry claims appear to have taken precedence over evidence-based policy-making.

Genuine security emerges through thoughtful design where security measures and civil liberties function as complementary forces, not opposing ones.

Easily Defeated #

The fundamental flaw in ChatControl becomes clear when examining how easily determined actors can circumvent these scanning systems. Criminals don’t need sophisticated techniques to bypass client-side scanning; they use well-documented public knowledge already employed by malicious actors.

Layered Encryption
Encrypt files with standard tools like GPG before messaging. Hell, even a basic Caesar cipher would be sufficient to bypass detection. Since client-side scanning occurs after user encryption but before transport encryption, pre-encrypted content looks like random data to detection algorithms. Recipients decrypt locally with shared keys.

External Platform Bypass
Upload content to any third-party platform (Dropbox, OneDrive, anonymous file hosts, or obscure hosting services) and share links instead of files. The scanner sees innocent text containing a URL while the actual content sits untouched on external servers.

Custom Messaging Clients
Open-source protocols like XMPP and Matrix allow custom client development. Modified clients can automatically implement cloud storage and encryption workflows transparently. Users experience normal messaging while completely evading surveillance infrastructure.

Digital Steganography
Steganographic techniques embed data within innocent images. Family photos can carry hidden payloads invisible to both human operators and AI systems. Tools like OpenStego make this accessible to average users.

Platform Migration
Criminal networks can shift to decentralized platforms, peer-to-peer networks or services outside EU jurisdiction. Tor-based messaging, blockchain communications or servers in non-compliant countries remain beyond ChatControl’s reach.

ChatControl catches only amateur criminals who directly attach problematic content to messages. Professional networks already employ these evasion techniques as standard practice. EU legislation won’t make them forget how computers work.

The system fails at protecting children while succeeding at mass civilian monitoring. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Business Interests #

Industry Players #

The child protection narrative masks concerning business interests. The European Commission based its CSAR proposal primarily on claims from industry players rather than independent research.

Commercial surveillance companies would manage the technology with guaranteed access to the European market. Organizations like Thorn (co-founded by actor Ashton Kutcher), Microsoft’s PhotoDNA and other tech companies develop these detection systems while simultaneously lobbying for regulations that would require their adoption across Europe.

These companies develop the detection technologies and lobby for laws mandating their adoption, creating a profitable feedback loop. The proposal would secure privileged market positions for surveillance companies across hundreds of millions of European users. Pretty nice, isn’t it?

These systems would be:

  • Proprietary: Built on closed-source code with methods hidden from public view
  • Unverifiable: Operating without meaningful external examination or accountability
  • Legally powerful: Capable of starting criminal proceedings through algorithmic decisions

Rhetorical Tactics #

Corporate media offers control of internet speech wrapped in protect kids packaging.

Commissioner Ylva Johansson consistently emphasizes this narrative in her communications:

“[Privacy defenders make a lot of noise], but someone has to speak for the children.”

Won’t somebody please think of the children? - The Simpsons

Think of the children” is a well-documented political rhetoric technique that appeals to emotion rather than evidence. While child protection is genuinely important, this approach frames any opposition as being against child welfare, making nuanced discussion more difficult.

This creates a false choice. Privacy isn’t a luxury for troublemakers, it’s a fundamental right that protects journalists, whistleblowers, activists and ordinary people from unwarranted intrusion.

Critics aren’t opposing child protection. We’re questioning whether undermining privacy rights for 450 million 🇪🇺 Europeans is the most effective approach when targeted alternatives exist that preserve rights.

EU Country Positions #

Understanding how 🇪🇺 EU member states position themselves on this legislation is crucial, as their votes will determine whether ChatControl becomes reality.

Vote Breakdown #

Countries that support ChatControl (12): 🇧🇬 Bulgaria • 🇭🇷 Croatia • 🇨🇾 Cyprus • 🇩🇰 Denmark • 🇫🇷 France • 🇭🇺 Hungary • 🇮🇪 Ireland • 🇱🇹 Lithuania • 🇲🇹 Malta • 🇵🇹 Portugal • 🇷🇴 Romania • 🇪🇸 Spain

Countries that oppose ChatControl (7): 🇦🇹 Austria • 🇨🇿 Czech Republic • 🇪🇪 Estonia • 🇫🇮 Finland • 🇱🇺 Luxembourg • 🇳🇱 Netherlands • 🇵🇱 Poland

Countries still undecided (8): 🇧🇪 Belgium • 🇩🇪 Germany • 🇬🇷 Greece • 🇮🇹 Italy • 🇱🇻 Latvia • 🇸🇰 Slovakia • 🇸🇮 Slovenia • 🇸🇪 Sweden

National Stances #

💪 Strong opposition (the good guys) (click to expand)
  • 🇦🇹 Austria: Constitutional and privacy concerns.

  • 🇨🇿 Czech Republic: Prime Minister explicitly rejects proposals that would allow widespread monitoring of citizens’ private digital communications.

  • 🇪🇪 Estonia: Acknowledges sincere concerns about child exploitation, but opposes undermining end-to-end encryption and forcing mass surveillance.

  • 🇫🇮 Finland: Cannot support the latest compromise proposal because it contains a constitutionally problematic identification order.

  • 🇱🇺 Luxembourg: Rejects broad surveillance measures like client-side scanning and insists that EU regulation must ensure proportional, targeted detection to protect citizens’ fundamental rights.

  • 🇳🇱 Netherlands: Strong privacy protection stance.

  • 🇵🇱 Poland: Opposition to mass surveillance measures.

🤷 Undecided positions (click to expand)
  • 🇧🇪 Belgium: The N-VA party calls ChatControl a “monster that invades your privacy and cannot be tamed”. Despite this, Belgium backed Denmark’s compromise during September meetings. Mixed signals from Brussels.
  • 🇩🇪 Germany: Won’t break encryption but wants to find middle ground. They’re trying to craft their own compromise instead of rejecting ChatControl outright. Germany’s fence-sitting could be decisive.
  • 🇬🇷 Greece: Still figuring out the technical details. No clear stance yet.
  • 🇮🇹 Italy: Has concerns about expanding the scope to cover new CSAM detection. Rome seems hesitant about how far this thing could reach.
  • 🇱🇻 Latvia: The government likes what they see on paper but worries about political backlash after summer attention. Classic politicians hedging their bets.
  • 🇸🇰 Slovakia: Playing the wait-and-see game. No commitment either way.
  • 🇸🇮 Slovenia: Dealing with constitutional headaches around privacy. Another country wrestling with legal implications.
  • 🇸🇪 Sweden: Stockholm is still reading the fine print. Taking their time to decide.

Current Status #

Current situation: Country positions continue shifting regularly since September 12. With 12 countries supporting, 7 opposing, and 8 undecided, ChatControl supporters still fall short of the 65% EU population threshold needed for a qualified majority. The opposition maintains enough demographic weight to block the proposal for now, but the situation remains fluid as the interim regulation approaches expiration.

📅 Timeline of Events (click to expand)

  1. ChatControl Proposal Introduced

    May 11, 2022

    The European Commission unveils the original ChatControl proposal, requiring all email and messaging providers to scan communications for child sexual abuse material.

  2. Danish Presidency Takes Charge

    Jul 1, 2025

    🇩🇰 Denmark assumes the EU Council Presidency and immediately reintroduces ChatControl as a top legislative priority, targeting October 14, 2025 for adoption.

  3. Support Momentum Builds

    Jul 28, 2025

    Fifteen EU member states back the ChatControl proposal, reversing earlier resistance. 🇫🇷 France has shifted its position and now supports the proposal. 🇩🇪 Germany remains the crucial undecided vote.

  4. Opposition Wave Begins

    Aug 26, 2025

    🇨🇿 Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala announces total opposition on behalf of the entire coalition government.

  5. Constitutional Concerns

    Aug 29, 2025

    🇫🇮 Finland rejects the compromise proposal due to constitutionally problematic detection requirements.

  6. Blocking Minority Secured

    Sep 10, 2025

    🇩🇪 Germany, 🇱🇺 Luxembourg, and 🇸🇰 Slovakia officially oppose breaking encryption. This creates the blocking minority needed to stop the proposal.

  7. Estonia Joins Opposition

    Sep 14, 2025

    🇪🇪 Estonia acknowledges child exploitation concerns but opposes undermining end-to-end encryption and mass surveillance.

  8. Germany Wavers

    Sep 16, 2025

    🇩🇪 Germany refrains from taking a definitive stance during the LEWP meeting, despite previous encryption concerns. Position becomes uncertain.

  9. Three Countries Flip

    Sep 23, 2025

    🇧🇪 Belgium, 🇱🇻 Latvia, and 🇮🇹 Italy have moved away from supporting the proposal and are now undecided. Country positions continue changing regularly since September 12.

Source.

Consequences #

The effects of these proposals go beyond individual privacy concerns.

Cybersecurity gets compromised
Adding deliberate vulnerabilities to encryption creates weaknesses that everyone can exploit. Any backdoor for authorized access becomes a potential entry point for criminals and foreign intelligence services. In February 2024, the 🇪🇺 European Court of Human Rights already determined that mandating weakened encryption “cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

Innovation suffers
🇪🇺 European cybersecurity companies would face an impossible situation in global markets. How could they credibly sell security solutions when regulations require them to build in access mechanisms that undermine those very protections?

“Buy our ultra-secure encrypted stuff!” (Terms and conditions apply, government backdoors included)."

Tech companies will leave Europe
Privacy-focused services that moved to 🇪🇺 Europe after the Snowden revelations are already signaling they might leave. Signal has explicitly said it would stop operating in 🇪🇺 Europe rather than compromise its security.

Even 🇨🇭 Switzerland, traditionally seen as a privacy haven, is facing severe legislative pressures that are forcing tech companies to relocate. Proton has confirmed it has begun moving some of its physical infrastructure out of Switzerland due to “legal uncertainty” over the proposed surveillance law amendments. Lumo, their AI chatbot, became the first product to relocate, moving to Germany instead of Switzerland specifically because of these legislative concerns.

The Swiss OSCPT (Ordinance on the Surveillance of Correspondence by Post and Telecommunications) revision would require VPNs and messaging apps to identify users and retain data for up to six months, plus decrypt communications upon authority request. As Proton’s CEO Andy Yen explained, these are proposals that “have been outlawed in the EU” but could soon become reality in Switzerland.

Other privacy-focused providers like Tuta have expressed similar concerns and contingency plans to leave 🇨🇭 Switzerland if the surveillance laws pass.

Europe might become dependent on US surveillance
I’m not so sure on this one, but by outsourcing surveillance technology to American companies, 🇪🇺 Europe may create dangerous dependencies. These companies operate under 🇺🇸 US jurisdiction and the CLOUD Act, potentially allowing 🇺🇸 Washington to access data collected on 🇪🇺 European citizens. Under the pretense of child protection, the 🇪🇺 EU risks handing surveillance keys to foreign powers.

Social behavior changes
When people know they’re being watched, they change how they communicate. People start self-censoring, avoiding certain topics and carefully choosing their words even in private conversations.

This is called the chilling effect. Rights don’t disappear overnight: they erode gradually as people change their behavior to avoid potential problems.

Take Action #

Here’s how you can contribute to defending our digital freedoms:

  1. Share this article and educate your network: Use hashtags like #ChatControl or #StopScanningMe. Forward resources to friends, family and colleagues.
  2. Sign the petition: against ChatControl at change.org.
  3. Stay informed and follow updates: @[email protected], x.com/nonchatcontrol, patrick-breyer.de and fightchatcontrol.eu.
  4. Contact your national representatives to convince your country to oppose ChatControl, if it’s not already the case.
  5. Join campaigns and support organizations: stopscanningme.eu for local actions, EFF and EDRi for digital rights advocacy.
  6. Adopt privacy tools and infrastructure: Use Signal and other privacy-respecting alternatives. Host your own services or support privacy-focused providers.

Conclusion #

The irony is kinda painful: the continent that built GDPR to protect digital privacy now designs ChatControl to dismantle it systematically. What was once a fundamental right could become mandatory surveillance.

ChatControl represents a historic choice for 🇪🇺 Europe. Either we become the first democracy to normalize mass surveillance of private communications or we defend the digital rights that made Europe a global privacy leader.

You were the chosen one! - Star Wars

This decision deserves close attention: authoritarian regimes worldwide are watching, ready to justify their own programs with: “Eh, if Europe does it, why shouldn’t we?

The next chapter unfolds on October 14, 2025. 😉


Read the original article

Comments

  • By xp84 2025-09-2518:1312 reply

    From the article, the current flavor of "threat" this is being positioned to fight is CSAM.

    Does anyone believe that predators commit those heinous offenses because of the availability of encrypted channels to distribute those products of their crimes? I sure don't. The materials exist because of predators' access to children, which these surveillance measures won't solve.

    Best case scenario (and this is wildly optimistic) the offenders won't be able to find any 'safe' channels to distribute their materials to each other. The authorities really think every predator will just give up and stop abusing just because of that? What a joke.

    More likely of course, those criminals will just use decentralized tools that can't be suppressed or monitored, even as simple as plain old GPG and email. Therefore nothing of value will be gained from removing all privacy from all communication.

    • By blindriver 2025-09-2519:012 reply

      This has nothing to do with csam and arguing that point is on purpose, to distract people and the politicians can say “xp84 supports child pornography!”

      It has everything to do with censorship and complete control over people’s ability to communicate. Politicians hate free speech and they want to control their citizens completely including their thoughts. This is true evil.

      • By alkonaut 2025-09-2520:246 reply

        But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”. It doesn’t make sense. They can be gullible. Non-Technical. Owned by lobbyists. Under pressure to deliver on the apparent problem of the day (csam, terror, whatever). But I don’t think there is a general crusade against privacy. That’s why I think it’s so infuriating: I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy. They’re doing it blindly.

        This is pushed by parties that have a good track record of preserving integrity. That’s why it’s so surprising.

        • By Saline9515 2025-09-2520:341 reply

          If they are "just doing their job" why are they asking for an exemption that would apply only to them? No, they firmly believe that safety should be gained at the cost of privacy.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:541 reply

            I could imagine that war orders may be interpreted as "illegal" and therefore reported. Which may not be desirable?

            • By Saline9515 2025-09-2522:002 reply

              So it's ok if the database containing my nudes leaks, but not if it contains state secrets? I feel really protected!

              • By ben_w 2025-09-288:40

                State secrets are to governments as private keys are to software engineers, except it's much slower to change meatspace things like (to make up a fictional example) the gaps your military found in their CIWS naval defence system, which if leaked means your enemies now know know how to exploit in order to wipe out your navy.

              • By palata 2025-09-2522:291 reply

                Not saying that I agree, just saying that I can imagine it's not done in bad faith.

                • By Saline9515 2025-09-2610:391 reply

                  It's totally done in bad faith, corruption is a real thing in EU politics.

                  • By ben_w 2025-09-288:50

                    It may cause corruption, because despite lawmaker's attempts to carve out security*- and governance-critical communications, it's almost impossible for this tech to fail to open doors to blackmailers.

                    But existing corruption is neither necessary nor sufficient for what we see here. Wrong axis.

                    EU is (mostly, and relatively speaking) un-corrupt as governments go; more corrupt places (and also authoritarian places) will write fantastic laws that they just straight-up ignore.

                    * Which won't work anyway: consider that the US military had to issue statements and bans because fitbit was revealing too much about military bases.

        • By DeepSeaTortoise 2025-10-017:31

          With very few exceptions, politicians do know perfectly fine what they are doing.

          Each of them has a large budget to hire several staffers presenting every issue to them in ways they understand best, each government has a huge apparatus of various departments with domain experts analyzing every situation from every reasonable perspective and if all of that fails, barely and university or institute would fail to respond to a request for input from an elected official.

          Any and all ignorance of any significant politician is by choice. You can't push the oppression a decision causes to the maximum you'll get away with at that point in time without understanding the issue first.

        • By demosito666 2025-09-2521:081 reply

          > But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”.

          As someone coming from authoritarian state, this is such an alien line of reasoning to me. By definition, those in power want more power. The more control over the people you have, the more power you get. Ergo, you always want more control.

          It's easy to overlook this if you've spent your entire life in a democratic country, as democracies have power dynamics that obscure this goal, making it less of a priority for politicians. For instance, attempting to seize too much power can backfire, giving political opponents leverage against you. However, the closer a system drifts toward autocracy and the fewer constraints on power there are, the more achievable this goal becomes and the more likely politicians are to pursue it.

          Oh, and also politics selects for psychopaths who are known for their desire for control.

          • By Gander5739 2025-09-2711:38

            > By definition, those in power want more power.

            This is not what 'by definition' means.

        • By LocalH 2025-09-2919:12

          >But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”.

          Neither of these statements is as axiomatic as you think they are

        • By jnxx 2025-09-2619:211 reply

          > I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy. They’re doing it blindly.

          That is often a variant of Hanlor's razor brought up on questions like this. How do certain actors turn reliably to a course of action that is so damaging - but to any expert or even rational mind seems stupid! That can't be what they want?!

          I do not think that this reasoning holds.

          Hannah Arendt, when writing about totalitarism, came to the conclusion that there is a kind of complicity between evil and thoughtlessness. (I am still trying to find her exact words on this.)

          • By trinsic2 2025-10-044:52

            I know this is 4 days past, but wanted to let you know I recently stumbled upon Hanna Arendt's work while working on a video Essay for the TV series andor and man what a eye opener it is about these subjects. I havent read the book yet, but I listed to the youtube writing group talk on it from https://hac.bard.edu/

        • By palata 2025-09-2520:521 reply

          > I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy.

          But it is not even dismantling privacy. ChatControl would run client-side and only report what's deemed illegal. Almost all communications are legal, and almost all of the legal communications wouldn't be reported to anyone at all. They would stay private.

          The problem I see is that the "client-side scanner" has to be opaque to some extent: it's fundamentally impossible to have an open source list of illegal material without sharing the illegal material itself. Meaning that whoever controls that list can abuse it. E.g. by making the scanner report political opponents.

          This is a real risk, and the reason I am against ChatControl.

          But it isn't dismantling privacy per se.

          EDIT: I find it amazing how much I can be downvoted for saying that I am against ChatControl, but that argument X or Y against it is invalid. Do we want an echo chamber to complain about the principle, or do we want to talk about what is actually wrong with ChatControl?

          It's nice to say "those politicians are morons who don't understand how it works", but one should be careful to understand it themselves.

          • By stephen_g 2025-09-260:461 reply

            It's a mechanism where the Governments give lists of un-auditable hashes to chat operators and force them to send the content of messages to them when they match.

            You can't for a second imagine how that could possibly go wrong?

            The hashes are "only for what's deemed illegal" because just trust me bro. There won't be any false-positives because just trust me bro. Even if you do believe the Governments are fully trustworthy and don't care about false positives of your own personal images or messages being passed around law enforcement, most systems like this have usually also eventually been compromised by other parties (like CALEA which was used by China and other adversaries for years). Even if you fully trust the Government, we can't actually be sure the un-auditable list of hashes are only from them, or whether adversaries have compromised the system to add their own hashes. And we don't know that the mechanism that sends our private messages (from a real match, or a false-positive, or an adversarial added hash) are only going to authorised parties or if somebody else has managed to add themselves in (like has happened with "lawful intercept" systems in the past).

            So even when claiming it's only for combating the most heinous crimes, the system is too dangerous.

            • By palata 2025-09-269:48

              > You can't for a second imagine how that could possibly go wrong?

              I can, and that is why I am against ChatControl. But many many comments here say stuff like "it breaks encryption", and that's not actually what it does.

              The debate should focus on what ChatControl cannot solve, not on details it could solve. If you spend your day complaining about something that can be solved, politicians will (rightfully) say "I hear you, don't worry we will solve that".

              > There won't be any false-positives because just trust me bro.

              "There will be false-positives, but they won't have any impact on you". You find it invasive? 99% of people don't care, they already give all their data to private companies like TooBigTech.

              > whether adversaries have compromised the system to add their own hashes.

              So what? Legal material gets reported to the authorities, they see it's legal, and they realise that the list has been tampered with.

              > And we don't know that the mechanism that sends our private messages

              "Don't worry, we will make the code open source, you'll be able to audit it!"

              > The hashes are "only for what's deemed illegal" because just trust me bro.

              YES. That's my problem with it. It can be abused because fundamentally we cannot audit those hashes. We don't want to create a system that gives that power to whoever controls it.

      • By palata 2025-09-2519:275 reply

        [flagged]

        • By blindriver 2025-09-2520:111 reply

          Actually I deny that. What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM? What proof is there that they won’t simply move to another undocumented form of distribution once this is implemented, leaving the criminals unmonitored but every law-abiding citizen monitored?

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:152 reply

            > What proof is there that peddlers of child pornography are using chat to distribute CSAM?

            Are you kidding me? How do you think predators get in contact with children? Over social media that children use, obviously.

            And of course many criminals use chat. Most have no clue about encryption, like the vast majority of humans.

            • By xp84 2025-09-2520:361 reply

              > How do you think predators get in contact with children?

              I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the vast, vast majority of the perpetrators of these offenses are either family members, or known and trusted people to the family, such as the friends of an older sibling, friends of parents, stepparents, teachers, priests, etc. The bogeyman of the evil stranger paedo lurking on social media cold-calling random kids is an edge case.

              • By palata 2025-09-2520:56

                Have you really never seen those groups of teenagers who lure a predator to meet a kid somewhere (they do that over mainstream social media) and then beat and humiliate the said predator?

                I thought it was in fashion. Happens where I live.

            • By blindriver 2025-09-2520:471 reply

              “Distribute” not “contact”. Unless you want to scan all chat messages for potential signs of adults engaging in grooming of children too? Talk about a slippery slope, you’re basically making my point.

              • By palata 2025-09-2520:582 reply

                > Unless you want to scan all chat messages for potential signs of adults engaging in grooming of children too?

                Well, the point is to scan all messages, period.

                And then to detect those that come from predators, not adults. How often do parents convince their children to send... revealing pictures? Or to meet them somewhere? How often do parents introduce themselves to their children in messages?

                You can't seriously believe that a conversation between parents and children always looks like a conversation between a predator and children, can you?

                • By daynthelife 2025-09-268:471 reply

                  Sure, but who's reading the conversation to determine whether it "looks suspicious"? A regex? A neural network? Who decides the algorithm, and do you really can believe they won't ever change it to serve other more nefarious purposes like suppressing dissent?

                  • By palata 2025-09-2610:06

                    > Who decides the algorithm, and do you really can believe they won't ever change it to serve other more nefarious purposes like suppressing dissent?

                    YES. That's the problem. Whoever controls it has that power. We don't want that. That's the argument against ChatControl: "imagine that those who get in power are against you, and imagine what they can do if they abuse this tool".

                    But saying that "a law enforcement officer may see a false-positive between a parent and their child and I find this insufferable" won't convince many people, IMHO.

                • By rpdillon 2025-09-2615:321 reply

                  Dude, you're basically arguing that we should bring the equivalent of App Store review process to people's chat history. You know that automated and human reviews are an absolute nightmare for people to navigate and errors are made constantly and people complain about it loudly. And the plan here is to escalate that not to just whether or not your app gets published, but whether or not you can remain out of jail.

                  Seems like a terrible idea.

                  • By palata 2025-09-2621:16

                    Dude, I am not arguing that at all, you should read before you answer.

                    I am saying this:

                    > You can't deny that if you can read all communications, then it's easier to detect CSAM than if you can't even see it.

                    I am against ChatControl, but people who say "it shouldn't exist because it is useless because it cannot ever help detect anything illegal" are wrong.

                    It doesn't help the cause to flood people with invalid arguments.

        • By Saline9515 2025-09-2520:372 reply

          Criminals are reactive. If you add a CCTV where drug dealing happens, sellers and buyers will go to another place. In the end, nothing changes.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:59

            Not all of them are. Actually CCTVs catch some of them. Tapping their phones as well.

          • By sally_glance 2025-09-2521:061 reply

            Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. Yes, this is how it works - in every aspect of life we try to regulate as a society (through laws and enforcement). Criminal activities are prohibited, restricted and monitored. Criminals move on, but the law is also adaptive and soon catches on. Following your argument leads to anarchy and currently western society mostly shares the belief that we're better off with democracy.

            • By Saline9515 2025-09-2521:561 reply

              No,the logical conclusion is that, on the contrary, liberal democracies end up as authoritarian legalist regimes, as they progressively need more and more laws and enforcement to catch criminals who evade them.

              You can see this clearly with the constant inflation of AML laws in the EU, which become more and more restrictive and invasive each year, without any clear effect.

              • By palata 2025-09-2610:081 reply

                The US does not feel like they are into adding regulations, would you say they are less likely to end up authoritarian?

                • By Saline9515 2025-09-2610:37

                  There are multiple ways to end up an authoritarian State. You can add many regulations, then have someone come to power and use those regulations to repress society (a good example would be Germany in 1937), or have a weakening of the institutions protecting citizen's rights, which is something the US is experiencing.

                  It has started before Trump, I think that a turning point was the Patriot Act, but Democrats didn't overturn it and picked their ennemies, too[0].

                  [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

        • By atoav 2025-09-2520:001 reply

          > if you can read all communications

          But you can't. You can legally require messages to implement client side scanning before the encryption happens or add some backdoor keys and hope they don't leak.

          Since cryptography is known anybody can always just create messengers that just don't implement that requirement. If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me.

          Thats like fighting illegal street races by implementing electronically-GPS-enforced tempolimits for everybody. You won't catch the people it is meant to catch. Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:212 reply

            > But you can't.

            Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported.

            > If you sexually abuse children the hurdle to illegally running a non-backdoored messenger seems pretty low to me.

            How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers?

            Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers.

            > Only that surveilling your entire population minus the criminals has dire consequences for a free society.

            Again: I am against ChatControl. We fundamentally cannot know what is running in this client side scanner, and that makes it a risk.

            But saying that it won't ever catch a single criminal is not a valid argument. You won't convince politicians to vote against ChatControl with such claims.

            • By array_key_first 2025-09-262:061 reply

              > Not to mention that most people consuming CSAM are not technically savvy. It is known that such material goes through mainstream messengers.

              The reason is because it works. They're not stupid - they can use signal.

              The reality is that the privacy options not only exist, they're really good - often better and easier to use than the mainstream stuff.

              They will just pivot to other tools.

              • By palata 2025-09-2610:091 reply

                > How do you contact children on mainstream messengers if you can't use mainstream messengers?

                • By array_key_first 2025-09-2616:281 reply

                  The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM. Talking to kids isn't CSAM. You're talking about something else altogether, and something which is purely hypothetical.

                  • By palata 2025-09-2621:13

                    > The scanning just doesn't include contacting children - it includes CSAM.

                    My understanding is that they are not only talking about having a list of hashes (of illegal images), but also having some kind of machine learning. And they are not only talking about scanning images, but text, too.

                    I don't know what you expect them to report when scanning conversations with machine learning?

            • By atoav 2025-09-266:531 reply

              > Be careful what you wish for. We could enforce client-side scanning on the OS. Everything that appears on the screen is scanned and reported.

              Nope. Criminals can still just build their own devices with their own operating systems. We have existing OS without spying, people have them as ISO on their harddrives. You can't stop criminals from installing an old Lineage OS build.

              Legally you can't stop anybody from using encrypted channels if they are motivate unless you go out and erase the knowledge.

              Implementing filters that go on all communications is undemocratic. Any future authoritarian government can use the same filter to immediately target their opposition, not just in theory, in practise. We have designed our democracies with division of powers for the simple reason that we have learned through history that giving any single kind of entity that kind of power leads to tyranny. That means whenever we give the government new superpowers we are changing a carefully setup balance. What does the citizen get for that trade? Nothing. If your power only works as long as it is in the hands of the good ones and becomes dystopian once it gets into the hands of the bad guys, maybe that power shouldn't exist.

              Since we want to obviously prevent childrem from being sexually abused the best way to start according to most child-protection organizations is to start at the root. That means educating kids early on in child-suitable ways and investing in prevention and psuchological help for potential pedophiles. If children have the possibility to signal such a thing happened to adults or other persons of trust, you don't need mass surveillance.

              But my guess is that CSAM is just the symbolic reason, in reality this is meant to do more. It would be perfect to target small movements as they are emerging for example.

              • By palata 2025-09-2610:12

                > Nope. Criminals can still just build their own devices

                Haha sure. You over-estimate many of them. Not everyone breaking the law is a professional criminal. Especially when it comes to CSAM.

                > Legally you can't stop anybody from using encrypted channels if they are motivate unless you go out and erase the knowledge.

                ChatControl doesn't pretend to do this: they pretend to control mainstream social media, whether encrypted or not.

                > It would be perfect to target small movements as they are emerging for example.

                Yes, this is my problem with ChatControl: it's a powerful tool of surveillance that would be very dangerous if abused. We don't want to create that.

                But "it's useless because criminals will compile their own kernel anyway" is an invalid argument. It doesn't help the cause.

    • By palata 2025-09-2519:251 reply

      Disclaimer: I am against ChatControl.

      > Does anyone believe that predators commit those heinous offenses because of the availability of encrypted channels to distribute those products of their crimes?

      Who says that? I don't think they say that.

      > The authorities really think every predator will just give up and stop abusing just because of that?

      Nope, they think they will be able to arrest more predators.

      > More likely of course, those criminals will just use [...]

      You'd be surprised how many criminals are technically illiterate and just use whatever is the default.

      • By GoblinSlayer 2025-09-270:16

        >just use whatever is the default

        gmail? google drive?

    • By InvisGhost 2025-09-2518:431 reply

      They better ban password protected zip files too!

    • By jimbo808 2025-09-2519:201 reply

      The thing that is crazy to me is that they choose to go after Signal of all things. Certainly there would be higher priority targets than a messaging app that has no social networking features to speak of, if child predators were really the target here.

      • By palata 2025-09-2519:318 reply

        This is nonsense. Anyone who has the smallest clue would use Signal for anything sensitive. Of course people would use Signal to talk about illegal stuff.

        I am against ChatControl. But I am amazed by all the bullshit arguments that people find to criticise ChatControl.

        If you have more control, obviously it's easier to track criminals. That's not the question at all. The question is: what is the cost to society? A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted and people were fine. Why would it be different now? That's the question you need to answer.

        • By kypro 2025-09-2519:432 reply

          You're all assuming that predators who are already deliberating using apps which are encrypted to share CSAM won't just move to something else where there is encryption – which will always be possible unless the EU fines a way to ban maths or reverts back to the pre-digital age.

          This might catch the odd moron sharing stuff on Facebook or on their phone, but I doubt it will stop the average offender was is already going out of their way to use encrypted apps/services.

          But okay great, at least you catch the morons I guess, but at what cost? Here in the UK it's pretty common to be arrested for tweets at it is. There's no doubt in my mind this will be used to catch individuals committing speech crimes who are currently getting away with it because they share their opinions behind closed doors.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:301 reply

            > but I doubt it will stop the average offender

            I strongly believe it will catch the average offender. The average human doesn't have a clue about cryptography.

            It won't catch all of them, of course. My point is that it is invalid to say that it won't catch anyone.

            > but at what cost?

            EXACTLY! The problem is that whoever controls the list of illegal material can abuse it. We fundamentally cannot audit the list because the material on this list is highly illegal. There is a risk of abuse.

            • By olejorgenb 2025-09-2522:211 reply

              "It won't catch all of them, of course. My point is that it is invalid to say that it won't catch anyone."

              Sure, but wouldn't they quickly learn once people are getting caught?

              • By palata 2025-09-2522:47

                No, they wouldn't. People were getting caught before encrypted apps. People are still getting caught on unencrypted apps today, even if it's easy to install an encrypted app.

                And predators who get in contact with kids have to do it over social media that the kids use. Those ones would be affected by ChatControl.

          • By Woodi 2025-10-018:07

            Good point. When crime is to hard for average moron then mafia start to provide new services, as they usually do. Probably with path for effortless escalation to not online experience. Epstein was just a test run, maybe...

            But privacy-less society will be implemented by then... Just a question: why they want no privacy at all costs ??

        • By miroljub 2025-09-2519:451 reply

          It was unencrypted and “it was fine“ because it was technically nearly impossible to store and process all communications. Now, one small server cluster can analyse all communication channels in a country in real time. The only thing stopping it is the encryption.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:341 reply

            Ok, but with ChatControl, you still send your messages encrypted. They are scanned on your device.

            So all communications aren't stored outside of your device, right?

            • By ulrikrasmussen 2025-09-262:511 reply

              All falsely flagged communication is. And there will be lots and lots of it, even if it is just a tiny fraction of the total number of messages sent, since the number of messages sent between people is so big. This is the classic problem with statistical methods looking for rare things in large populations which also is why we don't screen everyone for all illnesses all the time - the false positives would do too much harm.

              You also will not know if your message is flagged, so if you are ever in doubt about how your message will be categorized, you will have to assume that it will be flagged and sent to storage for an unknown amount of time

              • By palata 2025-09-269:572 reply

                If you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech.

                Feels a bit hypocritical to accept one and not the other.

                Really, I think that the problem with ChatControl is that it is a weapon for surveillance. Not because of the false positive, but because whoever controls it can decide what gets reported. Depending on how a government evolves, that could be very dangerous. And we have examples of governments evolving like this in history.

                • By danaris 2025-09-2616:571 reply

                  > If you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech.

                  And what makes you think we don't?

                  It's much, much easier to stop new incursions into our privacy than to claw back privacy we've already lost. And it's much, much easier to stop the government from violating our privacy than to stop megacorporations accountable to no one for anything other than profit from doing so.

                  I think seeing hypocrisy here is being extremely uncharitable.

                  • By palata 2025-09-2621:23

                    I guess what I am trying to say is that the population doesn't care. If you want to convince politicians, you have to convince the population.

                    IMHO there are valid arguments against ChatControl that are not "you see what you allow TooBigTech to do to you? Well with ChatControl you would allow much less to the government. Isn't that terrible?"

                    A strong argument against ChatControl, IMO, is that it builds a powerful tool of surveillance. Not because "someone fairly random will see false positives", but because someone in power (e.g. a president) could abuse it to maintain their power (e.g. by targetting political opponents).

                • By ulrikrasmussen 2025-09-288:08

                  Where did I write that I thought that was OK? I am writing this on a de-Googled phone, I have hosted my own email for over two decades and I avoid big tech like the plague. Please stop with the whataboutism.

                  I share your other concern, but I think it's related to the one I mentioned. Suddenly false positives turn into true positives, but for things that were totally unrelated to the initially stated goals of Chat Control.

        • By AlexandrB 2025-09-263:341 reply

          > If you have more control, obviously it's easier to track criminals.

          So why are criminals not being tracked? Seems like there's a shit ton of cameras everywhere but stores are still locking everything valuable behind glass. The benefits of this stuff never seem to materialize in practice.

          • By palata 2025-09-2610:00

            Sorry, but you won't convince anyone with that argument.

            That's my point: there are good arguments against ChatControl. Better focus on them.

        • By zenlot 2025-09-2519:471 reply

          > A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted and people were fine.

          A few decades ago, a user base using whatever was available was about 99% lower than now. As well as governments were so illiterate that they could not read with the tech they had even those unencrypted messages.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:221 reply

            Snowden was more than a decade ago. The NSA was recording everything.

            • By zenlot 2025-09-2617:511 reply

              A few decades ago implies 1990s or early 2000s. In 1990 he was 7 years old. In early 2000 - 17 years old.

              • By palata 2025-09-2712:271 reply

                a few

                a small number of units or individuals

                • By 1dontnkow_ 2025-09-2917:561 reply

                  A few is at least 3 because then you'd use "a couple". So its 3 decades or more, which is 30 years at least.

                  • By palata 2025-10-0720:551 reply

                    This is not how natural languages work.

                    • By zenlot 2025-10-094:58

                      This is exactly how it works, and thread is proof of that. You're just being wrong and trying to find your way out of it.

        • By mewpmewp2 2025-09-2519:451 reply

          So ChatControl means that e.g. Signal would be obligated to automatically scan pictures and messages sent for CSAM. This is beyond encryption. And if they were to actually do that, it would mean it's non sensical for people spreading this material to use it as they would immediately be caught, so they would just use other tools.

          But people are talking about both - the ridiculousness of the premise that this would help combat this and additionally of course the cost of privacy.

          It's beyond encryption. Teenagers sending each other pictures could get flagged by AI etc. Any of your messages and images having potential to get falsely positively flagged.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:253 reply

            So what? If predators cannot talk to children over SnapChat, that's a win, wouldn't you say?

            The only valid argument I see against ChatControl is that fundamentally, you cannot know what it is reporting. It's not like if there would be an open source list of illegal material together with the hashes, right?

            If you cannot audit what is being reporting (with whatever means necessary to make sure it is doing what it should be doing), then whoever controls it could abuse it.

            That's the problem. That's the reason not to implement it. But it's completely overwhelmed by the flood of invalid arguments.

            • By mystraline 2025-09-2521:081 reply

              > The only valid argument I see against ChatControl is that fundamentally, you cannot know what it is reporting. It's not like if there would be an open source list of illegal material together with the hashes, right?

              By definition, they must state what is actually illegal, lest I be hidden laws with hidden punishments.

              And those lists of 'illegal' need to be publicly disclosed, so we are aware.

              At least in the USA a naked picture of someone who is 17y364d old is 'child porn', but that extra day makes it 'barely legal'. But yet, most USA jurisdictions say that 16y can have sex. Just that pictures are EVIL even if you take them yourself.

              Again however, I tend to more agree with Stallman that CSAM or child porn picture possession should either be legal or have a mens area attached, and not strict possession. Its proof of a crime, and shouldn't in of itself be a crime.

              But because a picture is a crime, we get these horrific laws.

              • By palata 2025-09-2522:451 reply

                > By definition, they must state what is actually illegal, lest I be hidden laws with hidden punishments.

                I don't need to murder you in order to say that murdering you is illegal, do I?

                Of course they don't have to publish CSAM material in order to say that this is illegal CSAM material. If you could go get CSAM material at your local library, nobody would be talking about scanning it with ChatControl...

                • By mystraline 2025-09-260:501 reply

                  Then from a picture, tell me what the exact age of the nude person is.

                  Again, we need to know the exact year and day. 17y364d is illegal but 18y is legal.

                  • By palata 2025-09-269:581 reply

                    Not sure how this answers my comment above.

                    • By mystraline 2025-09-2613:461 reply

                      It points out the failing of comparing an action (killing someone without cause), and passively receiving a picture.

                      That picture does NOT have enough information to determine if its legal or not. And even as simple as 1 day can be the difference between legal and not.

                      And of course, is also thethe hypocrisy of sex being legal at 16, but pictures are 'child porn', when they are demonstrably NOT children.

                      • By palata 2025-09-2615:59

                        Well, there are MOST DEFINITELY images that are, UNAMBIGUOUSLY, VERY illegal. It is not hypocritical to say that detecting such images one a device means that someone should look into it, because something got VERY WRONG there.

                        So yes, MANY pictures already exist that do have more than enough information to determine that they are VERY ILLEGAL.

                        If you can't apprehend that, I don't know what to tell you.

            • By Saline9515 2025-09-2520:42

              I think that a world where underage children can't access tik tok and snapchat is an acceptable cost to keep our rights for privacy.

            • By demosito666 2025-09-2520:461 reply

              > The only valid argument

              Really? The only one?

              • By palata 2025-09-2521:00

                Really, yes. I am against ChatControl myself, and I am genuinely struggling to find credible messages against it.

        • By op7 2025-09-2519:471 reply

          All communications were unencrypted because encrypting them would have incurred unduly burdensome processing. Nowadays computers can encrypt and decrypt on the fly for virtually free.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:262 reply

            Sure. Still people considered themselves free and living in democracies. Why wouldn't it be the case today?

            • By ulrikrasmussen 2025-09-262:39

              We also didn't have AI models that politicians believed could detect bad behavior on a mass scale. Implementing Stasi level mass surveillance would be very expensive back then, even if there was full access to all communication. Now the proposal is to make a model try to categorize your messages and flag you.

              I believe that politicians believe that AI models can do this well without negative consequences. But I also think they forget that a model with 99.99% specificity applied to ten million messages will still falsely label 1000 as harmful.

            • By prmoustache 2025-09-2521:00

              People using online communication system were a niche, not the norm andost people didn't have the tool and knowledge to access someone else's digital communication.

              It is not the case anymore.

        • By tormeh 2025-09-2523:052 reply

          Most illegal things go on Telegram for some reason. I guess Signal doesn't have the required features.

          • By palata 2025-09-2712:28

            It only proves that people doing illegal stuff mostly have no clue about security...

          • By GoblinSlayer 2025-09-270:34

            Founder in jail.

        • By jimbo808 2025-09-2519:461 reply

          Anyone using a mobile device for CSAM is in prison by now.

          • By palata 2025-09-2520:271 reply

            Predators use mainstream social media to enter in contact with children.

            • By prmoustache 2025-09-2521:041 reply

              Most victims of child abuse know their aggressor because it is part of their social circle: dad, mother, uncle, brother, sport coach or a friend of the parents/sibling.

              • By palata 2025-09-2522:482 reply

                Most, not all of them.

                Or are you saying that we should not care about the others?

                • By AlexandrB 2025-09-263:411 reply

                  It's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.

                  • By palata 2025-09-2610:041 reply

                    Agreed. But then you have to explain how you set your boundary. You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.

                    ChatControl will protect some kids. If your argument is "yeah, shit happens", you won't convince anyone. If your argument is "yes, but at a great cost for society", then you need to explain what the cost is.

                    Saying "your freedom" is worth exactly as much as "but CSAM" when said from the other side. It's not enough. What is the tangible risk of ChatControl?

                    • By GoblinSlayer 2025-09-270:37

                      >You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.

                      Constitution says I can. The country is governed by people.

                • By prmoustache 2025-09-2613:581 reply

                  Are you saying that scanning every single communication the only way?

                  • By palata 2025-09-2621:19

                    What I am saying is that scanning every single communication most definitely helps preventing some CSAM.

                    Is it worth it? Well that's the question, and I am against ChatControl so I think it is not worth it. But if you try to convince a politician that scanning every single communication cannot ever help law enforcement, then good luck. Because you are wrong.

                    Why not taking valid arguments against ChatControl instead?

    • By brikym 2025-09-269:03

      The same EU that let loads of rapists into Europe is telling us that they care about the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_swimming_pool_rape https://portal.research.lu.se/en/activities/nearly-two-third...

      More likely it's ironically so that the people cannot oppose such policies as they won't be able to organize when all comms are tapped.

    • By gjsman-1000 2025-09-2518:401 reply

      > Best case scenario (and this is wildly optimistic) the offenders won't be able to find any 'safe' channels to distribute their materials to each other.

      The theory is based on the documented fact that most crime is poorly thought through with terrible operational security. 41% is straight up opportunistic, spur of the moment, zero planning.

      It won't stop technologically savvy predators who plan things carefully; but that statistically is probably only a few percent of predators; so yes, it's probably pretty darn effective. There are no shortage of laws that are less effective that you probably don't want repealed - like how 40% of murderers and 75% of rapists get away with it. Sleep well tonight.

      • By nikkwong 2025-09-2518:572 reply

        Exactly. Econ 101: why do consumption taxes work at all? By increasing the amount of pain associated with purchasing a particular indulgent product, you decrease the consumption of that product on the margin. When you increase the price of cigarettes by 20%, cigarette smoking in a society decreases. But for the most addicted, no consumption tax will probably act as a deterrent.

        Some individuals will find a way to distribute and consume child pornography no matter the cost. But other addicted individuals will stop consuming if doing so becomes so laborious because they are consuming or distributing on the margin. I.e, imagine the individual who doesn't want to be consuming it, who knows they shouldn't—this type of deterrent may be the breaking point that gets them to stop altogether. And if you reduce the amount of consumption or production by any measure, you decrease a hell of a lot of suffering.

        But anyway, the goal of this legislation is not to drive the level of distribution to 0. The goal of policymakers could be seen charitably as an attempt to curtail consumption, because any reduction in consumption is a good thing.

        • By gjsman-1000 2025-09-2519:02

          Exactly my point, but also, to add to it:

          Let's say you're actually texting in a group. Even if you use perfect operational security, odds are terrible that all members of your group will perfectly uphold the same level of security every time they share their content.

          One is going to slip up. He's going to get arrested. And he's going to turn the whole group in to reduce his sentence. Everyone else meanwhile has their operational security become proof of intent, proof of deliberation, proof of trying to evade authorities. They thought they were clever with the encrypted ZIP files, but the judge and jury are going to be merciless. I don't think most authorities have a problem with that.

        • By delis-thumbs-7e 2025-09-2519:271 reply

          Wait. Are you calling child pornography an ”indulgent product?”

          • By nikkwong 2025-09-2519:43

            Was referring to tobacco, alcohol, soft drinks etc

    • By dekken_ 2025-09-2518:38

      Absolutely, evidence of abuse is secondary to the actual abuse.

      Plus, the fact you could use/make AI/LLM/etc generate nefarious content that is hard to tell is fake, tells you the abuse isn't even what they are interested in.

    • By anal_reactor 2025-09-2518:35

      That's not a bug, that's a feature. They'll say that current surveillance tools are insufficient, and demand more.

    • By lukan 2025-09-2519:151 reply

      Best case scenario would be, lots of children will be saved from abuse because the magic software somehow discovers that. I kind of doubt it though.

      • By EGreg 2025-09-2519:253 reply

        No, you don’t get it. Hosting or possessing CSAM has criminal penalties even if no children were involved. For example AI generated imagery.

        In fact, even if zero children are ever trafficked or abused going forward, and pedophiles only use old photos of children from 30 years ago, merely having these images is still an issue.

        Conversely, the vast majority of sexual abuse of minors doesn’t involve images and goes unreported. "Considerable evidence exists to show that at least 20% of American women and 5% to 10% of American men experienced some form of sexual abuse as children" (Finkelhor, 1994). "Most sexual abuse is committed by men (90%) and by persons known to the child (70% to 90%), with family members constituting one-third to one-half of the perpetrators against girls and 10% to 20% of the perpetrators against boys" (Finkelhor, 1994).

        In short - if they wanted to reduce child abuse, scanning everyone’s communications for CSAM would not be the most straightforward way to go about it.

        • By lukan 2025-09-2519:38

          "No, you don’t get it."

          Did you get my last sentence?

          "In short - if they wanted to reduce child abuse, scanning everyone’s communications for CSAM would not be the most straightforward way to go about it."

          What would be the most straightforwand way? Install a camera in every home?

          Yes, abuse is usually more to be found inside families. And the solution kind of complicated, involving social workers, phone numbers victims can call, safe houses for mothers with children to flee into, police officers with sensitive training who care, teachers who are not burned out to actually pay attention to troubled kids ...

        • By guerrilla 2025-09-2519:33

          How do they know it's unreported if it's unreported? They mean unreported to police but reported in scientific self-report surveys?

        • By palata 2025-09-2519:33

          > if they wanted to reduce child abuse, scanning everyone’s communications for CSAM would not be the most straightforward way to go about it.

          * First, this is not what politicians do. What they want is to look like they are fighting it.

          * Second, what is your more straightforward way to fight CSAM? Asking for a backdoor is pretty straightforward, I find. I would rather say that fighting CSAM is more difficult than that.

    • By thfuran 2025-09-2519:053 reply

      >The authorities really think every predator will just give up and stop abusing just because of that? What a joke.

      Yes, the framing is disingenuous, but so is yours. You're seriously suggesting that any policy that doesn't 100% eliminate a problem is a joke?

      • By amarant 2025-09-2519:172 reply

        If the cost of the proposal is "let's throw democracy under the bus" as it is in this case, it better be damn close to 100% effective to be worth it!

        I have a hard time imagining this will be more than 10% effective.

        This proposal is a joke

        • By reenorap 2025-09-264:06

          It's going to be 0% effective. It won't take long for criminals to use their own encrypted communication systems, and only law-abiding citizens will be monitored.

          And then you'll get into a scenario that the government will punish you for wrong-speak, like when people had their bank accounts frozen for donating to the trucker protests. Or they will turn off your access to social media the way the Biden Administration did during the Pandemic.

        • By palata 2025-09-2519:344 reply

          A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted. Would you say that democracies did not exist then?

          • By buildbot 2025-09-2519:501 reply

            This is completely untrue! Important communications have always been enciphered since language has been created I’d wager, whether that cipher is specific terms (grog means attack that person in 10 seconds!) or a book cipher, e.i. The first letter of a bible verse than the second letter of the next verse etc. Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible.

            It is now only recently possible to dragnet in mass many communications, store, and analyze them. The past decades have brought new threats to privacy democracy through breaking encryption at the state scale.

            • By palata 2025-09-2520:322 reply

              > Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible.

              Were most people encrypting their handwritten letters? Were most people encrypting their messages before sending them by SMS or with WhatsApp? Really?

              • By Levitz 2025-09-2522:051 reply

                No, because there was an expectation of privacy. That expectation is no longer there.

                • By palata 2025-09-2522:382 reply

                  Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever.

                  But ChatControl won't prevent the encryption for anyone who is not the receiver of the reports. And the receiver is the equivalent of "law enforcement", right?

                  • By nazgul17 2025-09-2523:04

                    The scalability of spying has exploded. Back before re-election comms, the government had no way to spy on communications and sieve out opposers - now they do, with encryption the only thing standing in the way.

                  • By Levitz 2025-09-2613:441 reply

                    >Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever.

                    Not without legal proceedings. The population would have been absolutely outraged if the government just decided to read all of their mail one random day in the 90s.

                    There's a reason the whole idea was supposed to be a conspiracy theory, the population literally didn't believe something like that could happen.

                    • By palata 2025-09-2615:491 reply

                      I think that there is a big difference, for the population, between "somebody is reading and keeping a copy of all your mail" and "Some algorithm looks for illegal material locally on your phone. If you don't have illegal material, it won't do anything".

                      Nobody would want to carry a microphone recording them 24/7 and storing everything on a server, but everybody is fine with TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data.

                      We have to accept that people are fine with the idea. The problem (both with the connected mic and ChatControl, btw) is that it can be abused. That's the problem. Again: we have to convince people that it is at risk of being abused. Not that they should be outraged. They just are not.

                      • By GoblinSlayer 2025-09-271:04

                        >TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data.

                        Instead they notify you that you gave them perpetual license to reuse your data.

              • By thfuran 2025-09-2521:43

                Not most but some.

          • By amarant 2025-09-2521:23

            Are least where I'm from, there are pretty strong laws against reading snailmail post of others. To this day, any law enforcement that tries to open people's snail mail will laughed out of the courtroom, and quite possibly out of their jobs too!

            Today nobody uses snail mail. This proposal is the equivalent of proposing to read everyone's private letters back in the day.

            Technical details are technical details

          • By buellerbueller 2025-09-2520:251 reply

            A few decades ago, few communications were tracked. When everything is tracked (as it is now), the only way to have privacy is with encryption.

            • By palata 2025-09-2520:321 reply

              Snowden said otherwise, more than a decade ago.

              • By thfuran 2025-09-2521:461 reply

                Which part are you disputing?

                • By palata 2025-09-2522:421 reply

                  The fact that ChatControl is killing democracies.

                  It's a tool that could be abused, but I wouldn't say that it is enough to kill a democracy all by itself.

                  • By amarant 2025-09-260:191 reply

                    To make a silly analogy: A stone in go has 4 liberties. Take away all four and the stone dies.

                    Chat control takes away one liberty from democracy.

                    Ask any half decent go player what will happen to that stone if we just ignore the attack upon it?

                    • By palata 2025-09-269:531 reply

                      If they suspect that you own CSAM material, law enforcement will check your devices. Actually if they have convincing arguments, the way they get access to your devices may touch your physical integrity.

                      You don't have the liberty to avoid that, today. By design.

                      My point being that if one could prove that the ChatControl detection is only running locally and that it is only reporting what's acceptable to report, then it wouldn't hurt your freedom (except for your freedom to do illegal stuff, but that's the whole point).

                      The problem is that it is not possible to prove this. Fundamentally. We need to talk about that. Not throw some "it will kill democracy because you should trust me when I say it".

                      • By amarant 2025-09-2615:151 reply

                        But chat control will have "master keys"to all communication.

                        That key will leak eventually, it's too juicy a target.

                        You describe chat control as if it's just an AI csam scanner that runs locally on your phone, like what apple did recently-ish.

                        Chat control is so much more than that, and so much worse

                        • By palata 2025-09-2615:551 reply

                          > But chat control will have "master keys"to all communication.

                          That's not my understanding. My understanding is that ChatControl will run client-side scanning and report what is deemed illegal.

                          This is not a master key to all communications.

                          • By 2000UltraDeluxe 2025-09-276:391 reply

                            Last time I checked, the preferred method was to simlify known CSAM material enough that you can hash the result, then repeat in the client end and hope nothing else has the same hash.

                            • By palata 2025-09-2712:251 reply

                              Which makes it even less of a problem than what people say. I see that as an argument in favour of ChatControl. If it really "just" compares hashes locally, then the claims that it breaks encryption is even more wrong.

                              • By westmeal 2025-09-2713:311 reply

                                But how is this supposed to protect children if say an abuser takes pictures or videos of the victim?

                                • By palata 2025-09-2722:46

                                  I don't see this as a valid argument. You can't say "I can find a situation where ChatControl does not help, therefore ChatControl is always useless".

                                  On the contrary, it is an argument in favour of extending ChatControl to using machine learning for detecting such cases.

                                  The problem, again, is that we don't want to have an opaque system that can be extended to surveilling new things, because it's very difficult to audit and make sure it is not abused.

          • By AlexandrB 2025-09-263:51

            Encryption is not the only privacy assurance that exists in democracies. For example, the government is (or at least was[1]) not allowed to open your mail. You could send CSAM Polaroids back and forth and nothing would happen.

            Chat Control amounts to routine, warrantless interception of private communication. Something you see in states like the USSR.

            [1] https://www.westernstandard.news/news/liberals-push-bill-to-...

      • By like_any_other 2025-09-2519:133 reply

        Well, what is "the problem"? Is it children being abused, or is it the distribution of CSAM?

        And if you say both - how would you rate the relative severity of the two problems? Specifically, if you had to pick between preventing the rape of a child, and preventing N acts of CSAM distribution, how big would N have to be to make it worth choosing the latter?

        • By jimbo808 2025-09-2519:231 reply

          I don't think they care what N is, they are just scapegoating a vile group they know will have no defenders, and they can use it to silence the critics by associating them with that group.

          • By mystraline 2025-09-2521:15

            Bingo.

            Today its the pedophiles and 15-17-philes (those are this fake group adolescent, which are also tried as adults when convenient).

            Tomorrow, its the adult sex workers.

            Then its the fringe group's topics that is on the outs with the majority.

            Then they come for you, and nobody is able to speak up because they banned protests.

            ... To paraphrase Martin Niemoller.

        • By jMyles 2025-09-2520:131 reply

          > Well, what is "the problem"? Is it children being abused, or is it the distribution of CSAM?

          It seems obvious that it is entirely the former and not at all the latter. In other words, N is positive infinity. Am I missing something?

          I only care about kids being hurt. And I think this view is close to consensus.

          • By thfuran 2025-09-2521:51

            Ask anyone you know who has been sexually assaulted or raped what they think of the idea of pictures or recordings of that being both kept by the perpetrator and widely disseminated. I think you'll find very few who'd say that's totally fine. But given that there can be no CSAM without child abuse, the direct physical abuse is clearly the primary problem.

        • By pbhjpbhj 2025-09-2520:49

          What do you think it would be for you?

          What's worse for you? Being raped as a child. Or, having people sexually gratify themselves looking at images of you being abused; using those images to groom other children, or to trade and encourage the rape of other children?

          You might as well ask someone which eye they prefer to have gouged out with a blunt screw.

          Let's do both: try to stop child sexual abuse and try to stop images of abused children being used by abusers.

      • By jMyles 2025-09-2520:101 reply

        > You're seriously suggesting that any policy that doesn't 100% eliminate a problem is a joke?

        I think a more charitable reading is that any policy that doesn't 100% _target_ a problem is a joke. This policy doesn't have a plausible way that it will protect children from being victimized, so I think it's reasonable to remove the "think of the children" cloak it's wearing and assess it on the merits of whether encryption is beneficial for the social discourse of a society.

        • By palata 2025-09-2521:021 reply

          > This policy doesn't have a plausible way that it will protect children from being victimized

          Of course it does. "It will detect and report messages from predators to children, therefore preventing the child to get to the point where they send revealing pictures or meet the predator in person". Done.

          • By jMyles 2025-09-2521:221 reply

            Well, maybe the word "plausible" is doing too much work in my statement.

            Most abuse happens from people known to the child, and of that portion, most are family members. It seems like there is sufficient opportunity in-person comms to route around this limitation.

            Moreover, even the communications that do happen online can still easily happen through encrypted media; presumably the perpetrators will simply move to other ways of communicating. And kids, at least kids over 10 or so, don't seem like a demographic particularly likely to follow this law anyhow.

            There's another nuance worth considering: by and large, parents _want_ their kids to have access to encrypted communications. I'll happily assist my kiddo in maintaining good opsec - that's much more important to me than some silly and uninformed policy decision being made far away by people I've never met.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20210522003136/https://blog.nucy...

            So, the kids are still going to be where the encrypted comms are. I still think it's reasonable to say that the protections offered to kids by criminalizing encryption are implausible.

            • By palata 2025-09-2521:581 reply

              > Most abuse happens from people known to the child

              Sure, but it means that at least some happen from people unknown to the child. If ChatControl doesn't cause any problem but helps preventing those abuses, then it's worth it. The question is: what are the problems caused by ChatControl?

              Saying "only a minority of children get abused this way, so it's not worth it" won't go far, IMO. It's not a valid argument against ChatControl in itself.

              > presumably the perpetrators will simply move to other ways of communicating.

              The perpetrators have to contact kids over apps that the kids use. Like Snapchat or TikTok. It's not like the kids will routinely install a weird app to talk to weird people...

              > parents _want_ their kids to have access to encrypted communications.

              But ChatControl doesn't remove the encryption! It scans everything locally, before it gets encrypted and sent.

              > by criminalizing encryption

              It's not criminalizing encryption: it's forcing a local scan on your device. Just like there are already scans happening on clouds for non-E2EE data.

              Don't get me wrong: I am against ChatControl. For me the problem is that I see a potential for abuse with the "list" (whether it's a list or a sum of weights) of illegal material. This list cannot be made public (because it's highly illegal material), so it's hard to audit. So whoever has control over it can abuse it, e.g. to find political opponents. That's my problem with ChatControl.

              • By porridgeraisin 2025-09-2614:061 reply

                Wow, the only prosaic take in this entire dumpster-fire of a thread.

                Can you point me to the doc that says all this?

                Admittedly I didn't yet bother looking for the official ruling since those are massive, and media sites were just politicising it.

                • By palata 2025-09-2615:39

                  I don't have a doc to point to, it's just my understanding of ChatControl :-).

    • By Animats 2025-09-2520:051 reply

      Is text-only CSAM even a thing?

    • By jalapenos 2025-09-2713:54

      The calculus is simple:

      - People who go into government want power over others, and they'd therefore prefer more power than less at every junction

      - The population put up very little resistance in general - e.g. as we saw with COVID, they'll freely let the government put them under house arrest and destroy their businesses, to protect them against a bug only slightly deadlier than the flu

      - However they do need some pretext - with none at all, impinging on people's civil liberties would cause confusion, and the people might even ponder grumbling about it, which would be unnecessarily messy for everyone involved

      - Hence they simply need to lay out some half-assed pretext, just to make it easy for people to internally justify their further loss of rights, so that they don't have to have any uncomfortable thoughts like "maybe I should disagree with this?"

      - "Think of the children" is a nice easy one. It's basically a farcical meme at this point, but that doesn't affect its effectiveness, for the reasons described. You could use this for literally anything, no matter how extreme (I'm sure for instance the Nazis used it as one reason for exterminating Jews - to protect "Aryan" children & their future etc)

  • By haolez 2025-09-2516:2017 reply

    I think the challenge for society here is not to simply reject attempts like this, but how to prevent them from being pushed over and over until a specific context allows it to be approved.

    • By contravariant 2025-09-2516:269 reply

      The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise.

      Which is a bit complicated here, as the EU has no real constitution and this 'law' (really a regulation) is a blatant violation of the constitutions of countries that did choose to establish secrecy of correspondence.

      • By _t9ow 2025-09-2516:352 reply

        > The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise

        And the willingness and ability to enforce it. The current iteration of ChatControl is pushed by Denmark, which is at present the President of the Council of the European Union. The Danish Constitution itself enshrines the right to privacy of communication [0], but this is not stopping Denmark from wanting to ratify ChatControl anyway.

        [0]: https://danskelove.dk/grundloven/72

        • By raverbashing 2025-09-2516:521 reply

          Yes but unfortunately courts are mostly reactive, not proactive

          Sometimes there are some mechanisms to block unconstitutional (or other regulation) laws from passing but they're limited

          Not sure how that would apply at the EU level or even at the Danish level

          • By reliabilityguy 2025-09-2517:272 reply

            > Yes but unfortunately courts are mostly reactive, not proactive

            I think it’s always the case, no? Unless the unconstitutional law is approved, there is nothing to dispute in court.

            • By spockz 2025-09-2518:241 reply

              In the Netherlands we have the “Eerste kamer” (first chamber, also called Senate) that is responsible for verifying that the proposed laws are in accordance with our “constitution”. They are elected of band with the normal government which should ensure that no single party is able to steamroll laws through both chambers.

              • By 1718627440 2025-09-2518:50

                In theory the "Bundespräsident" in Germany is supposed to only ratify laws that are in accordance with the constitution, but I don't think it happens that he refuses to do this.

            • By KPGv2 2025-09-2518:02

              Correct. Imagine the number of challenges in court based on mere rumor of a law.

        • By rapind 2025-09-2517:063 reply

          > but this is not stopping Denmark from wanting to ratify ChatControl anyway.

          What the TLDR of the motivation behind this? Is it just politicians playing to their base (think of the children) or corporate lobbying. or religion, etc?

          Seems to me that the negatives of passing something like this are super obvious and dystopian.

          • By _t9ow 2025-09-2517:181 reply

            I suspect it's a mix of many Danish politicians' own authoritarian tendencies/ambitions and corporate lobbying, though I have no proof of the latter when it comes to ChatControl specifically.

            Generally speaking, there is a lot of dark money in Danish politics, and the EU has repeatedly flagged Denmark as a country lacking in transparency with regards to corporate lobbying: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/eu-kritik-af-danmark-puster-...

            Generally speaking, the Danish government also tends to behave in authoritarian ways. E.g., Denmark has wilfully violated EU regulations on data retention for many, many years. In 2021, a Danish court ruled that the Danish Ministry of Justice could continue its mass surveillance practices even though they were (and still are) illegal under EU law: https://www.information.dk/indland/2021/06/justitsministerie...

            Currently Denmark is also trying to leverage its position as the President of the Council of the EU to legalise, on a EU-wide level, the form of data retention that Denmark has been illegally practising: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...

            • By reliabilityguy 2025-09-2517:291 reply

              Interesting. I am not expert on politics of Denmark, so my question is: is this push universal across political parties or it’s a feature of a specific political block that rules for the past X years and consistently worked in this direction?

          • By drdaeman 2025-09-2517:56

            Generalized, this looks to me like a question about why humans sometimes get hell-bent about some idea and become blind to the side effects and ignorant when it comes to risk management.

            Sometimes it could be malice or personal gains. Sometimes, I think, it could be just a strong bias towards some idea that causes a mental blindness. Such blindness can happen to anyone, at any level of power (or lack thereof), politicians are not unique in this - the only difference is the scope of impact due to the power they have. And we aren't particularly filtering them against such behavior - on the contrary, I feel that many people want politicians to have an agenda and even cheer when they put their agenda above the actual reality, any consequences be damned.

          • By thatguy0900 2025-09-2517:101 reply

            If I was leading another western nation I would be looking at the right wing takeover of the US government in terror.

            • By KPGv2 2025-09-2518:04

              For sure. Does anyone want Trump to know everything you write? Erdogan if Turkey ever does enter the EU?

      • By okanat 2025-09-2516:372 reply

        EU has the Charter of Fundamental rights which is a part of the Treaty of Lisbon which is the constitutional basis of EU: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Right...

        In the charter, the protection of personal data and privacy is a recognized right. So chat control is also probably against the EU law.

        • By Aloisius 2025-09-2517:261 reply

          Both the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data appear to have pretty big exemptions for government.

          The right to private communications was modified by the ECHR to give an exemption for prevention of crime/protection of morals/etc.[1] and the right to protection of personal data exempts any legitimate basis laid down by law[2].

          I imagine they'd be able to figure out some form of Chat Control that passed legal muster. Perhaps a reduced version of Chat Control, say, demanding secret key escrow, but only demanding data access/scans of those suspected of a crime rather than everyone.

          Legal rulings also seem to indicate that general scanning could be permitted if there was a serious threat to national security, so once a system to allow breaking encryption and scanning is in place, then it could be extended to what they want with the right excuse.

          [1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/7-respect-privat...

          [2] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/8-protection-per...

          • By AAAAaccountAAAA 2025-09-2521:22

            > I imagine they'd be able to figure out some form of Chat Control that passed legal muster. Perhaps a reduced version of Chat Control, say, demanding secret key escrow, but only demanding data access/scans of those suspected of a crime rather than everyone.

            Isn't that pretty much excatly how it is done in Russia, which was ruled by ECHR to be illegal[0]?

            https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854%...

        • By zamadatix 2025-09-2516:481 reply

          I'm not familiar with EU law, but reading Title II article 7 and 8 makes me feel this could be an optimistic interpretation of what the Treaty of Lisbon guarantees. I'm sure the supporters of chat control would love to argue something like "ChatControl respects the private communications of an individual by protecting how the data is processed to ensure only the legitimate basis of processing the data is incurred by the law" in court.

          I would hope the EU courts would disagree, but I'm not sure if anyone can say until it's tested directly.

          • By chmod775 2025-09-2516:591 reply

            Even the EU council's legal service thinks the law as-proposed is probably incompatible with Article 7 and 8:

            > The CLS concludes that, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice at this stage, the regime of the detection order, as currently provided for by the proposed Regulation with regard to interpersonal communications, constitutes a particularly serious limitation to the rights to privacy and personal data protection enshrined in Article 7 and 8 of the Charter.

            https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8787-2023-I...

            • By zamadatix 2025-09-2518:54

              I think there are variants of the ChatControl proposal which were clearly problematic, but the different variations of the proposal try to toe the line since. This report talks to the 2022 era proposal.

      • By pjmlp 2025-09-2516:411 reply

        As shown on the other side of Atlantic that is worthless when no one upholds the constitution.

        • By Imustaskforhelp 2025-09-2516:522 reply

          I think of constitution as a contract between the citizens and the state and the (judiciary?)

          Like, constitution both defines the rights of citizens and the limits of those rights and the same goes for the states.

          I feel as if the creators of constitutions think that it is a set of checks and balances...

          Just as if how a citizen violates something written in the constitution, the state can punish it.

          In the same manner, I believe that the constitution thought that if the state violates some constitutional right of citizen, then citizens can point that out and (punish?) the state as the legitimacy of state is through that constitution which they might be breaking...

          I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america. The thing is, revolutions are often messy and so much things are happening in america that I think that people are just overwhelmed and have even forgotten all the stuff happening in the past... Like tarrifs were huge thing, then epstein news then this I think autism thing by trump.

          Like, the amount of political discourse is happening less and idk, oh shit, just remembered the uh person deporting thing which was illegal which was done anyway

          If these things happened in isolation, they would all have huge actions against govt. but they are happening back to back and so everyone's just kinda silent I think, frankly I believe overwhelmed.

          I believe that just as in nepal, in america everyone is whining on social media but nobody's taking action. Nepal blocked social media and so people in nepal were kinda forced to take action irl and it worked kinda nice in the end tbh

          So maybe its social media which is enabling this thing.... which is funny to me as I am doing the same thing right now lol

          All for sweet internet points tho.

          • By DangitBobby 2025-09-2517:224 reply

            A large portion of the population either does not believe or does not mind the violations of our constitution to achieve their desired outcomes. As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance. This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.

            • By LexiMax 2025-09-2518:091 reply

              > This year has been a devastating blow to my confidence in our democracy and the ability of people to govern themselves generally.

              The latter has been on my mind for quite some time.

              The logical conclusion of "people can't govern themselves generally" kind of gestures at religion as a solution - after all, if man cannot govern themselves, why not rely on a higher power to manage them?

              Of course, the problem with that point of view is that from the atheistic perspective, there is no higher power, and from the agnostic perspective, whatever higher power there is is inscrutable and beyond our ken.

              This then leads me to the conclusion that religion is ultimately a creation of men, and are thus prone to the same power-corrupting vices as any other institution created by men.

              Except that leaves no real solution the problem of the governance of people. And it's a quandary I see no realistic chance of escape from.

              • By Imustaskforhelp 2025-09-2522:43

                I agree to the same thing to a somewhat degree from another standpoint / a discussion worth tapping into.

                Its not that the logical conclusion is "people can't govern themselves generally"

                Its that, we have created a system which incentivizes corruption or basically evil things for the most part from TOP TO BOTTOM partially influenced by biological factors beyond our control.

                Sure, one answer to the "people can't govern themselves generally" is to decentralize the power.

                I live in India and I loathed my political system thinking that it wasn't good and I really appreciated american political system but the more I think about it, fundamentally Indian political system is one of the best actually.

                It has 3 levels of decentralization with Strong Right to information and uh multi party system with Even Universal basic income which I came to know from an american which is a real shocker I know.

                Yet I still see people begging and there being some chaos, My logical answer to it is corruption from TOP TO BOTTOM which I observed atleast.

                I sort of believe that the same thing happens everywhere to be honest if that can make sense...

                Like, there is corruption and human evils which is what people select in real life anonymous things as compared to true morality that one can reason through. Simply for one's own profit.

                It also might be one of those debates that India might have a good political system but simply the people don't have enough money or something and they want more or everyone does it which is a common answer that I actually hear.

                I believe that the reason why people can't govern themselves generally is that there is a biological answer to it in the sense that for people to govern themselves, we would prefer /need an altruist society and in an altruist society, and how the genes which favour a bit of evil in altruist society might reproduce more and spread sort of thus creating an equilibra of sorts and combining with that the idea on how interlinked/interinfluential each of us is to one other through language.

                It was a catharsis to me, The answer might be depressing. But its fundamentally logic. Life just sort of happened and then it got way too focused on spreading itself / the one which did survived and boom that's biology which then gets to this political thing...

                Like it was sort of meant to happen y'know? atleast that's my current understanding of it. Would love to discuss tho.

            • By ux266478 2025-09-2518:343 reply

              > As an American, it came as a surprise to me that we do not, in fact, have broadly shared values about our system of governance.

              It shouldn't, America is two very distinct nations. The shape and nature of those nations vary wildly in classical Baudrilliardian sidewinding progression, but it's rooted in the very early history of British North America. Two distinct primogenitor colonies and societies, Jamestown and Plymouth. Founded for different reasons, in different contexts, by different people. Understanding the disparity is key to understanding a great deal about America. This divide has always persisted. Jefferson was of Tidewater, Hamilton was of Yankeedom. Democrats vs Whigs. Dixie vs Yankeedom. This split persists in history, and is much the reason why America is ostensibly a two party system. Even if the regional divide is not as hard and fast as it once was, even if the matters in which they differ change radically over time, the divide itself will always persist. It's wrapped up in the pre-revolutionary context the country was founded on. America will always be two countries in a trenchcoat, two echoes of wildly different cultures set against each other for dominance. You should always be keen to remember that. The union isn't of 13 distinct colonies, but two distinct cultures always in tension. It's a fundamental structure within our larger cultural blueprint.

              • By Imustaskforhelp 2025-09-2522:52

                That's a great insight and one for which I thank you for pointing out as I learned something new thanks to you today.

                My question is whether two different cultures can in fact coexist with each other for a single system of governance.

                Like, Why do we focus so much on our differences as a species that we forget how much common we are on literally everything.

                What is a solution to this problem that's kinda impacting the world right now. America moves in pendulum in a political cycle completely 180'ing but yet at the same time, I feel like no real change is being made against lobbying/corruption which sort of infiltrates the world too.

                Bernie sanders and now maybe zohran are the two democrats who are genuinely tryna do something for america which I deeply respect tbh. Yet there wasn't really a way for one to vote for them directly y'know?

                Are these differences of cultures really that distinct to basically split a country in half in everything except the borders?

                Was there no way of integrating them without having them idk being the way that they are right now?

              • By cco 2025-09-262:081 reply

                I'm kinda struggling to understand how this relates to our makeup today. I can't find the thread.

                What cultural group today is Jamestown and which is Plymouth?

                • By ux266478 2025-09-280:491 reply

                  I think a good introductory text on the deep nature of the divide in America is We Have the War Upon Us by William J. Cooper.

                  It's mostly a book about the civil war, but it introduces some post-revolution pre-war history and names. That gives you more resources to dig up. You should read as much as you can and form your own opinions on that.

                  • By cco 2025-09-287:521 reply

                    I'm relatively well versed in "the divide" so to speak. But I'm trying to understand what you mean by the Plymouth and Jamestown split as it relates to our modern country today.

                    It seems like both the spirit of Plymouth and Jamestown are inside the big tent of the Republican party today. But that doesn't sound like what you intended it to mean. Or maybe it is?

                    That's the part I'm curious about; who is Plymouth and who is Jamestown in 2025 in your eyes?

                    • By ux266478 2025-09-2820:18

                      Plymouth is harder to identify. It's not just the Puritans at Plymouth, nor exclusively New England. It's merely everything that came with the second colonization. The Dutch are a foundational part of Yankeedom. In fact, New York should probably be considered more foundational than Plymouth. You would be right to identify Jamestown with the modern GOP. Traditionally it was represented by the Democratic party, but I assume you're familiar with that.

                      I should note these geists extend far beyond legitimate political guise.

              • By DangitBobby 2025-09-2519:441 reply

                Of course I understood there were vast cultural and political differences causing tension. I just also believed that we had a shared system of fundamental values enshrined in the constitution and when push came to shove, we would all rally behind it. That's what I thought American patriotism meant; I genuinely thought I could count on Red voters to rabidly defend the constitution.

                • By LexiMax 2025-09-2523:43

                  > I just also believed that we had a shared system of fundamental values enshrined in the constitution and when push came to shove, we would all rally behind it.

                  The US had a Civil War in the 19th century over the fear of the southern states that the northern states would not only refuse to continue to be complicit in the institution of slavery, but eventually end it.

                  The seceding states wrote slavery, as well as protections of the property rights of slave-owners, into their constitution.

                  After the war came the scaling back of Lincoln's planned reconstruction, sharecropping and Jim Crow. There are people alive today who remember segregation.

                  White supremacy is as American as apple pie.

            • By frumplestlatz 2025-09-2517:291 reply

              The thing I find most interesting about your reply is how it demonstrates that we live in wildly subjective realities.

              • By smcin 2025-09-2517:561 reply

                Specifically, how? GP's claims can be factually substantiated. Pick whichever you claim can't.

                • By ux266478 2025-09-2518:50

                  He isn't calling the claim subjective, but underlining what the claim posits entails that we live in subjective realities.

            • By protocolture 2025-09-260:301 reply

              My read on the US is that it could be 10 or more, functional independant states, or a single massive mess, and US citizens wake up every day and commit themselves to the mess.

              Right wingers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that they support suppression of gun rights and speech when it hurts their enemies. Their enemies often live many states away. I have seen the entire country flip on an issue just because the context changes.

              The bloodless resolution would be to just agree to not hang out anymore. But I think citizens of a once empire would feel somehow aggrieved to lose that empire. So you guys are going to have to figure this out after spilling a bunch of blood.

              • By DangitBobby 2025-09-261:161 reply

                The constitution provides no mechanism for dissolution or secession.

                • By protocolture 2025-09-262:53

                  Well thats it then. If it isnt written in the documentation, it cant be done.

          • By gameman144 2025-09-2517:162 reply

            > I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america.

            Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"

            • By Imustaskforhelp 2025-09-2522:26

              It was a grave tragedy and a miscalculation from my side.

              An error that should be discussed for generations :sob: /jk

              IN all fairness though, I don't know why I wrote concur, I just thought of it and thought it meant believe...

              What would be a fancier word of believe if I may ask ya that you would suggest me to use..

              Also I am sorry that I made a mistake tbh, I hope ya get it and thanks for correcting me!

            • By _9ptr 2025-09-2518:141 reply

              I assent to that statement

              • By Imustaskforhelp 2025-09-2522:32

                Made me have a good ol chuckle / laugh.

                Kinda liked it, so thanks lol

      • By zx10rse 2025-09-2517:57

        You are most definitely not right. The EU charter of fundamental rights is an agreement that holds legal binding. The institutions who are supposed to uphold the charter are CJEU, European Commission, FRA, NHRIs.

        The people who wrote this proposal said it themselves - "Whilst different in nature and generally speaking less intrusive, the newly created power to issue removal orders in respect of known child sexual abuse material certainly also affects fundamental rights, most notably those of the users concerned relating to freedom of expression and information."

        This proposal is illegal. The fact that CJEU at least haven't issued a statement that this is illegal tells you everything you need to know about the EU and its democracy.

      • By quotemstr 2025-09-2516:423 reply

        > The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise.

        Constitutions don't enforce themselves. The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms but multiple jurisdictions ignore it and multiple supreme court rulings and make firearm ownership functionally impossible anyway. Free speech regulations have, thankfully, been more robust.

        The only thing that stops bad things happening is a critical mass of people who believe in the values the constitution memorializes and who have enough veto power to stop attempts to erode these values.

        The US has such a critical mass, the gun debate notwithstanding. Does the EU have enough people who still believe in freedom?

        • By KPGv2 2025-09-2518:072 reply

          > The US constitution has a crystal clear right to bear arms

          It looks like it was drafted by an ESL speaker. It's by far the worst-drafted amendment, grammatically speaking:

          > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          It's not even a valid English sentence, and it certainly never bothers to define "Arms." Not to mention that, as written, it appears to make it illegal for me to tell you that you cannot come to my house with a gun, because that's me infringing your right. It doesn't constrain Congress. It constrained anyone who wants to take away your right to bear arms.

          Sheer lunacy as written. Ungrammatical and implies some insane shit.

          But no, you're right, it's crystal clear. Much like how the First Amendment says

          > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

          which in crystal clear terms makes it legal to mass-distribute child pornography. To prohibit it would restrict the freedom of the press.

          • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:01

            It also implies that the militia is regulated.

          • By _9ptr 2025-09-2518:092 reply

            Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly

            • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2025-09-2518:291 reply

              Ok, get a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate to approve a proposed edit removing those commas, and then get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve it.

              Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.

              • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:011 reply

                Comma rules change over time.

                • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2025-09-2519:271 reply

                  But the text of the Constitution only changes through amendments.

                  That said, the effective meaning of the Constitution is "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is."

                  And to a degree, given the power to impeach Supreme Court justices, "whatever a majority of the Supreme Court agrees it is, and with Congress sufficiently on board to not impeach sufficient justices to force a shift in the balance of the Court."

                  • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:361 reply

                    I'm responding to:

                    >>> Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly

                    >> Until then, the commas are officially part of the text.

                    > Comma rules change over time.

                    Maybe the equivalence of the sentence at drafting, today is without commas?

                    • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2025-09-2519:521 reply

                      That depends on the opinions of 9 very specific individuals. How the text and its commas might be interpreted by you or I today is irrelevant.

                      • By 1718627440 2025-09-2520:061 reply

                        But you chose to tell us about your interpretation. :-)

                        I had less the current legal interpretation and more the meaning at the time of writing down, as it would reveal itself in current text, in mind, which is relevant to this argument.

                        • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2025-09-2520:181 reply

                          I see the conversation differently.

                          KPGv2 pointed out the phrasing of the 2nd amendment is not clear.

                          GLdRH said "Remove the first and last comma and the sentence works splendidly".

                          I said that modifying the literal text requires going through the amendment process.

                          You said "Comma rules change over time."

                          I reiterated that the literal text does not change except through the amendment process, and also noted that fundamentally the literal words don't matter much as it's up to a majority of the Supreme Court how to interpret any of it.

                          You then brought up modern language usages of commas.

                          I replied that how you or I today interpret the text is irrelevant because only the Supreme Court's opinion matters.

                          At no point in this conversation have I expressed a specific interpretation of the text, so your indication that I chose to tell the discussion about my interpretation seems weird and maybe you're misreading usernames somewhere along the way.

                          • By 1718627440 2025-09-2521:51

                            > maybe you're misreading usernames

                            Sorry for that.

                            > KPGv2 pointed out the phrasing of the 2nd amendment is not clear.

                            I thought me and GLdRH replied to KPGv2 stating that the 2nd amendment isn't valid grammar and this results in some of the unclarity.

                            When you have this:

                                X -> [grammar rules 18th century] -> 2nd amendment -> [grammar rules 21th century] -> ...
                            
                            , then when you want to discuss meaning issues due to grammar rules, you need to use 18th century grammar. I perceived GLdRH to use 21th century grammar to encode the same sentence. The literal text does not need to be modified, since it uses 18th century grammar rules. Only when you want to parse it with 21th century grammar rules, you need to preprocess it to adjust the grammar first. This preprocessing doesn't need to be written back, since the grammar rules of the text haven't changed. We are only circumventing the parser not supporting the texts grammar.

                            > only the Supreme Court's opinion matters.

                            This is purely about syntactic issues, not about semantics. The Supreme Court applies also semantics, such as the other legal system definitions of the time. I wasn't replying to that aspect.

            • By KPGv2 2025-09-265:11

              No, it doesn't. I said it's grammatically incorrect, not orthographically incorrect. (It's arguably correct orthographically based on the incorrect grammar.)

              > [Noun], being [clause], [grammatically correct sentence]

              is objectively incorrect English grammar.

              Eliding the "being" appositive, you're left with

              > [Noun], [sentence].

              Unless you're talking to the noun (as in "Hey, you, the well regulated militia! Did you know that the right to keep and bear arms . . . "), it's not grammatically correct.

        • By platevoltage 2025-09-2517:471 reply

          I'm not here to argue about the right to bear arms in the USA, but the 2nd amendment is anything but crystal clear in its language.

          • By _9ptr 2025-09-2518:08

            Seems pretty clear to me, although I'm neither an american nor a lawyer.

        • By fsckboy 2025-09-2516:461 reply

          i think making your argument on free speech grounds would be stronger

          • By quotemstr 2025-09-2516:483 reply

            How so? My point is that US constitutional protections on firearm ownership have undeniably eroded. The presence of text on the page did not prevent this erosion. I'm using gun rights as an example of a situation in which text granting a right becomes irrelevant if people stop believing in the values behind the text.

            People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun rights in some places.

            EU free speech protections are in the same position gun rights are in the US, and for surprisingly similar reasons.

            • By Aloisius 2025-09-2518:21

              This simply isn't true. If anything, constitutional protections have dramatically expanded since the amendment was passed.

              This is because until the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights only restricted the Federal government, not the States. Prior to the that, state and local governments could (and did) restrict not just firearms, but other rights as well.

              Hell, the Bill of Rights still hasn't been fully incorporated, so for instance, despite the 7th Amendment stating otherwise, you don't have the right to a jury trial in civil cases in every state nor the right to indictment by grand jury (5th Amendment).

              Of course, some states copied parts of the constitution into their own and had some form of protection, but it was by no means universal. Massachusetts even had a state church until 1833.

            • By fsckboy 2025-09-2516:591 reply

              when you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights (like the people in the US who also favor eroding them, wording of the rules be damned)

              HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.

              • By dmitrygr 2025-09-2517:021 reply

                > you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights

                You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.

                • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:05

                  In the EU you can have guns, you just must pass some tests, that you know how to use them and you need to store them in separate ways.

                  But guns are vastly insufficient in this century to overthrow the state, you basically only harm your fellow citizens with them.

            • By hellojesus 2025-09-2517:02

              Most of the erosion is done through court challenges.

              Historically, courts have maintained that legislation is pursued under "good faith". This was the justification for not overturning ACA on the grounds of it being an unconstitutional tax: the lawmakers didn't mean to make it an unapportioned tax, even though it effectively is, so it's okay yall. Washington St just did this with income taxes on capital gains in direct violation of their state constitution a year or two ago.

              Where I live, you cannot open carry. That is a direct violation of 2A, but the courts have said it's okay baby because it's not an undue burden to pay a fee and waste a day of your life. Pure nonsense. Just change the constitution for goodness sake.

      • By DoingIsLearning 2025-09-2516:40

        Plenty of EU states already have a constitution in which this proposal would be de facto unconstitutional.

        The issue is what is the European Commission willing to do in order to guarantee that fat contract check goes to Palantir or Thorn or whoever has the best quid pro quo of the day.

        This is not Stasi this is Tech billionaires playing kings and buying the EC and Europol for pennies on the dollar and with it the privacy of virtually every citizen of zero interest for law enforcement or agencies.

      • By rsynnott 2025-09-2516:47

        For practical purposes the EU does have a constitution, it's just a messy collection of treaties rather than a single codified constitution (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu... for why).

      • By NooneAtAll3 2025-09-2516:322 reply

        isn't constitution easily changed by parlament?

        • By asmor 2025-09-2516:341 reply

          Usually not "easily". I know Germany requires 2/3 majority.

          • By fsckboy 2025-09-2516:55

            fwiw, amending the US constitution generally requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress to propose the amendment, and then further ratification by 3/4 of the states make the amendment law. it's a fairly long process, and amendments sometime get bogged down and die in the 2nd phase.

            (there is another process which calls for a convention, but such a convention would have broad powers to change many things and so far the "two sides" (US rules tilt toward two parties rather than more) have been too scared of what might happen to do that)

        • By raffraffraff 2025-09-266:11

          Ireland's Supreme Court decided in 1987 to make a referendum mandatory before they would ratify EU treaty amendments. Not that it mattered, because they got a "no" vote but their puppet masters wanted a "yes", so they just reran the referendum the following year...

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_t...

          Only 59% turn out, and the vote won 67%. So in reality less than 40% of the population were for it.

          I have vague memories of people saying that the treaty was indecipherable. The EU were like, "Here, vote yes for this big bag of 'misc', or else"

          This wasn't the first time they reran a referendum for an EU treaty. They did it back in 2003!

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_of_th...

          If the UK wanted to avoid BREXIT all they had to do was look a few miles to the west for the knack.

      • By kypro 2025-09-2516:404 reply

        I've commented this elsewhere, but rights in the US are generally much more absolute than here in Europe.

        For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone.

        Similarly rights to privacy are often ignored whenever a justification can be made that it's appropriate to do so.

        I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but here in the UK you don't even have a right to remain silent because the government added a loophole so that if you're arrested in a UK airport they can arbitrarily force you to answer their questions and provide passwords for any private devices. For this reason you often here reports of people being randomly arrested in UK airports, and the government does this deliberately so they can violate your rights.

        • By tick_tock_tick 2025-09-2517:431 reply

          > For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone.

          So you actually don't have freedom of expression?

          • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:081 reply

            No offendings are not an expression. What do you express with them, poor anger management?

            Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.

            • By kyboren 2025-09-2519:441 reply

              > Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.

              Ah yes, that memorable trifecta: Life, Liberty, and the Right to Never Hear Mean Words.

              • By 1718627440 2025-09-2520:031 reply

                Oral violence also has consequences. From invoking or reinforcing mental diseases over fear and isolation to blackmail and being socially judged on while being innocent. Do you accept random beatings when people feel like it on the street?

                • By AlexandrB 2025-09-264:021 reply

                  Oral violence is an oxymoron. It's dangerous to conflate words and violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence.

                  • By 1718627440 2025-09-267:071 reply

                    Why? How do you define violence? Harming people? Insults and false accusations can have much greater harm to a life then a broken leg.

                    > violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence

                    When you don't have a way to fight back and make something stop, without resorting to physical aggression, then your only way is to punch back. When the legal system allows you to fight back, then you can walk away, knowing you can call your lawyer or the police.

                    • By AlexandrB 2025-09-2612:49

                      Insults cannot have greater harm than just about any physical injury. False accusations already have a legal recourse, as they're defamation.

                      Have you had a broken leg? When you're young it's an alright thing to deal with, when you're older it can be life altering (it might hurt forever or alter your gait). However most spontaneous violence doesn't result in broken legs but rather hits to the head which can very quickly end up at CTEs or other brain trauma.

                      In an equal society, you really don't want actual violence to be on the same spectrum as speech of any kind. One problem is that ~50% of the population has a massive natural advantage in the realm of actual violence. Would a husband beating his wife because of "violent words" she inflicted on him be ok under the "speech is violence" rubric?

        • By 1dontnkow_ 2025-09-2918:09

          "something that could offend someone" thats too simplified.

          You can freely express your opinions regarding any political party or head of state and so, but not directly and specifically offend them. You can say "their performance this year wasn't good due to that or this". But cant say "They should eat shit!" or "deserve to be shot" which kinda is also OK because the former doesn't contribute to anything and the latter we all agree is highly immoral or inhumane.

          PS: I'm talking from the perspective of Germany, not entirely sure about other countries.

        • By latexr 2025-09-2522:55

          Freedom of speech is not absolute in the USA.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

        • By realo 2025-09-2517:003 reply

          "... expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone. ..."

          You probably mean hate speech.

          We have laws like that too in Canada. It is a good thing.

          • By happyopossum 2025-09-2517:15

            It all depends who’s defining “hate”. The people you like who are in charge today won’t be there in 20 years, and if any kind of extremism leaks in to society, you could find yourself unable to advocate for your beliefs without getting arrested.

          • By tick_tock_tick 2025-09-2517:44

            I mean Canada's a pretty depressing example of how bad those laws can be abused.

          • By hellojesus 2025-09-2517:161 reply

            How on earth are hate speech laws a good thing? Or did I miss a /s?

            • By platevoltage 2025-09-2517:502 reply

              For example, the US government is trying to label any posthumous criticism of Charlie Kirk "Hate Speech". You can see how dangerous this could be when the hate-mongers get to decide what is considered hate speech.

              • By 1dontnkow_ 2025-09-2918:14

                That has nothing to do with "hate speech" and is just sold to Americans like that. Critisism and hate speech are entirely diffferent things and US's adminsitration is just.. idk insane lately? In EU, specifically Germany, its very different. You can critique publicly all day every day all politicians, dead or alive, as much as you want to and nobody is allowed to even give you a mean stare. But you can't spread hate or directly specifically offend someone, but surely comment on their performance during their mandate.

              • By hellojesus 2025-09-2519:08

                Honestly, the current administration baffles me. There is so much activity that flies squarely against the constitution in a not at all subtle or clever way; just blatant, "I don't care."

                It's one thing to be disruptive and enforce immigration law "by the books" but entirely separate to then go out of your way to not enforce it legally while at the same time violating or attempting to violate the constitution on pretty fundamental levels.

    • By tomkarho 2025-09-2517:127 reply

      The only way I see to prevent the constant pushing is that every single time some council or committee presents something like this every single of one of their private communication gets leaked for everyone to peruse at their leisure from whatsapp to bank statements.

      They want to erode people's privacy? Let them walk their talk first and see how that goes.

      • By ben_w 2025-09-2517:542 reply

        Tempting though that is, I think that's the wrong way to resolve it: The people proposing it (law people) are a different culture than us (computer people), and likely have a funamental misunderstanding about the necessary consequences of what they're asking for.

        Two cultures: https://benwheatley.github.io/blog/2024/05/25-12.04.31.html

        • By terramoto 2025-09-2518:081 reply

          Why would they exclude themselves from the rule if they werent worry about it? Its not like theres no pedophiles in those positions. I wonder who are they going to offer the job of watching the photos of families with kids for this.

          • By ben_w 2025-09-2520:52

            > Why would they exclude themselves from the rule if they werent worry about it?

            They don't even understand that they haven't. Sure, they've written the words to exclude themselves (e.g. UK's Investigatory Powers Act), but that's just not how computers work.

            The people who write these laws, live in a world where a human can personally review if evidence was gathered unlawfully, and just throw out unlawful evidence.

            A hacked computer can imitate a police officer a million times a second, the hacker controlling that computer can be untraceable, and they can do it for blackmail on 98% of literally everyone with any skeleton in the closet at the same time for less than any of these people earn in a week.

            The people proposing these laws just haven't internalised that yet.

        • By kmeisthax 2025-09-2518:511 reply

          Let's stop infantilizing our adversary. Law enforcement knows exactly what they're doing. If they didn't know that this law would compromise security, they wouldn't have gotten carve-outs for their own communications.

          • By ben_w 2025-09-269:05

            You think it's "infantilising" to call them a different culture?

            If any of us software developers tried writing a law, all of the lawmakers and enforcers would laugh at how naive our efforts were — that's not us being infants, that's just a cultural difference (making us naïve about what does and doesn't matter), and the same applies in reverse.

            > If they didn't know that this law would compromise security, they wouldn't have gotten carve-outs for their own communications.

            It compromises their security even with carveouts for their own communications, because computers aren't smart enough to figure out which communications are theirs, nor whether the "I'm a police officer serving a warrant, pinky swear" notice came from a real officer or just from a hacker serving a million fake demands a second.

      • By nextos 2025-09-2517:58

        > how to prevent them from being pushed over and over until a specific context allows it to be approved.

        We need more diverse mobile OSes that can be used as daily drivers. Right now, it's almost a mono-culture with the Apple-Google duopoly. Without this duopoly, centralization and totalitarian temptations would be less likely.

        There's GrapheneOS, which is excellent and can be used without Google, but it relies on Google hardware and might be susceptible to viability issues if/when Google closes down AOSP. Nevertheless, they are working on their own device that will come with GrapheneOS pre-installed, which is exciting.

        There's also SailfishOS, which has a regular GNU/Linux userland and almost usable at this stage with native applications. As a stopgap, it can also run Android applications with an emulation layer, and plenty of banking ones work just fine.

      • By zelphirkalt 2025-09-269:26

        Already so much embarrassing information about the people in power is leaked or uncovered by investigative journalists and organizations, who exist to uncover these things, that the despicable character of those people is something people can look up rather easily. I am not convinced, that we even collectively still possess one brain cell to let consequences follow, such as voting radically differently, starting a democratic process to vote or indirectly vote their arses out of office. Instead it seems like we have tons of non-democratic mindset people in our society, who don't inform themselves, don't care about other generations, are too uninformed to understand the consequences of their vote, and simply every time vote the same shit into office.

        Take Germany for example. For decades now we have let SPD, CDU, Greens, FDP ruin our country. AFD won't be better by the way. Again and again we vote against our own interest out of stupidity, complacency, or whatever it is. Oh, they want to raise pensions? What a coincidence just before the elections! Aaaand all the pensioners votes are secured for a party that will further ruin the country and line their own pockets. We do the same frickin shit every single time. And now it is so bad, that if we don't do it, then we will get right extreme AFD, that has even less a clue of what should be done, is paid by Pootin, and would fuck up things even faster.

        The basic premises, that you are voted out of office, if you do badly does no longer hold here. It's all money and population brainwashing, to vote against our own interest. What our ancestors have built up from the ruins of WW2, we throw out of the window in ever election that we elect the same shitty parties again: CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, FDP, AFD, Linke, BSW... None of these deserve our trust and vote. It apparently is asking too much of the citizens of a wannabe democratic country to check alternative parties in a Wahlomat before an election, to decide what fits best ones ideas.

      • By Alejandro9R 2025-09-2517:131 reply

        I like this idea frankly. Where are the hacktivists when we need them?

        • By goneri 2025-09-2517:201 reply

          You can become an "hacktivist" by taking 15 minutes of your time to write an email to your MEP.

          https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home

          • By 1gn15 2025-09-2517:28

            I think "hacktivist" here means hacking into the politician's inboxes and leaking the contents, like "politicians want to do this to you; let's see how they like it when it's done to them" sort of thing.

      • By ddalex 2025-09-2517:32

        No, you silly man, the politicians are protected from this law, this is just for the plebs.

      • By ihsw 2025-09-2518:17

        [dead]

      • By glenstein 2025-09-2517:44

        >The only way I see to prevent the constant pushing is that every single time some council or committee presents something like this

        Yes but.. it can't just be vague exhortations and generalities. I didn't know the pertinent bodies previously, but after GPT'ing on it, it looks like they include:

        One is "DG Home," an EU department on security that drafts legislation.

        Another is Europol, a security coordination body that can't legislate but frequently advocates for this kind of legislation.

        And then there's LEWP, The law enforcement working party, a "working group" comprised of security officials from member EU states, also involved in EU policy making in some capacity.

        I think the blocking states should be resisting these at these respective bodies too.

    • By stego-tech 2025-09-2517:54

      I would argue that a surefire way of guaranteeing the right to privacy is to instead continuously push for absolute-transparency laws for politicians and governments. If they’re going to demand every private citizen’s records are always open for view, then the same should be said for governments - no security clearances, no redactions, no “National Security” excuse.

      Is it patently unreasonable? Yes, but cloaked in the “combat corruption” excuse it can be just as effective in a highly-partisan society such as this - just like their “bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe ChIlDrEn” bullshit props up their demands for global surveillance.

    • By mtillman 2025-09-2516:342 reply

      I'm convinced the people suggesting this type of thing are influenced or even compromised by their constituent's enemies and NOT the result of poor education on the topic.

      This policy for example would be most helpful to enemies to the EU. It would lower the cost of acquiring the data for China and Russia as it allows them to mass acquire data in transmission without incurring the cost of local operations. The easiest system in the world to hack is that of a policy maker.

      • By _t9ow 2025-09-2516:39

        > It would lower the cost of acquiring the data for China and Russia

        Yes, it would lower such barriers for countries that are commonly seen today as Europe's adversaries. But in this case, the U.S. (or rather, U.S. organisations and corporations) might be the primary bad actor pushing for ChatControl. See e.g.:

        Thorn (organization) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)

        "Thorn works with a group of technology partners who serve the organization as members of the Technology Task Force. The goal of the program includes developing technological barriers and initiatives to ensure the safety of children online and deter sexual predators on the Internet. Various corporate members of the task force include Facebook, Google, Irdeto, Microsoft, Mozilla, Palantir, Salesforce Foundation, Symantec, and Twitter.[7] ... Netzpolitik.org and the investigative platform Follow the Money criticize that "Thorn has blurred the line between advocacy for children’s rights and its own interest as a vendor of scanning software."[11][12] The possible conflict of interest has also been picked up by Balkan Insight,[13] Le Monde,[14] and El Diario.[15] A documentary by the German public-service television broadcaster ZDF criticizes Thorn’s influence on the legislative process of the European Union for a law from which Thorn would profit financially.[16][17] A move of a former member of Europol to Thorn has been found to be maladministration by the European Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly.[18][19]"

        Additionally, it would not surprise me at all if Palantir is lobbying for this either. Many EU countries, like Germany and Denmark, have already integrated Palantir's software into the intelligence, defence, and policing arms of their governments.

        But at the end of the day, while it is convenient to blame external actors like U.S. corporations, ultimately the blame lies solely on the shoulders of European politicians. People in positions of power will tend to seek more, and I'm sure European politicians are more than happy to wield these tools for their own gain regardless of whether Palantir or Thorn is lobbying them.

      • By naijaboiler 2025-09-2516:59

        you have left out how it can be used to monitor violation of corporate copyright materials. And what it means for silencing political speech is enormous.

    • By abandonliberty 2025-09-276:33

      It's incredibly difficult to stop a well-funded, 50-year plan to subvert a democracy. The attention spans of politicians, corporations, and the public are measured in days, months, or years, not decades.

      After 9/11, the Bush administration was accused of abusing the crisis to expand executive power and the national security state. Those who raised the alarm about things like the Patriot Act were often dismissed as fringe alarmists.

      Now, nearly 25 years later, we're seeing the downstream effects of that gradual degradation of democratic pillars.

      On both sides, voters and politicians can be influenced by propaganda and campaign finance to accept small, incremental changes that don't seem dangerous in isolation, but can cumulate to crush an empire.

      Every democracy carries these risks. Do we think our opponents haven't noticed?

    • By ulrikrasmussen 2025-09-262:56

      This is why the right to protected communication, as well as the right to control the software running on general purpose computing devices that you own (i.e. no remote attestation), must be adopted as human rights.

    • By gmuslera 2025-09-2516:381 reply

      If only we could show them how this kind of things may go wrong. I don't know, the case of some leader of a nation they are having trouble with, abusing of a similar access with their data.

      But they will probably think that is only bad when others do it to them.

      • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2516:562 reply

        > If only we could show them how this kind of things may go wrong.

        We can. This has already happened with the fairly recent SALT TYPHOON hacks. China (ostensibly) abused lawful wiretapping mechanisms to spy on American (and other) citizens and politicians. The news at the time wasn't always explicit about the mechanism, but that's what happened.

        China wouldn't have been able to do this if those mechanisms didn't exist in the first place.

        • By brabel 2025-09-2517:10

          Wait, isn’t that the law working exactly as planned?

        • By gmuslera 2025-09-2519:59

          The elephant in the room here is US.

    • By zx10rse 2025-09-2517:47

      Strip the privileges from the bureaucrats who are involved in any type of government work or activity. No immunities, no security.

      If you want to be a servant to the public be one.

    • By thinkingtoilet 2025-09-2516:242 reply

      Agreed. In this case, there needs to be some sort of 'privacy bill of rights'. Something fundamental where any law like this cannot be passed.

      • By layer8 2025-09-2516:47

        This exists. But courts have to balance conflicting rights, so there is always room for interpretation.

      • By quotemstr 2025-09-2516:442 reply

        Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Laws not enforced and rights not protected don't matter.

        As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

        • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2516:592 reply

          > Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns.

          Prove it. Every statistic I've ever seen shows the exact opposite of this to be true.

          • By logicchains 2025-09-2518:262 reply

            Here's the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... . Those kinds of mass killings can only happen when the citizens are disarmed, because it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.

            • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:12

              Those kind of mass killings also happen in authoritative regimes, which typically emerge from violent societies.

            • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2520:50

              > it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.

              This is literally, and provably, untrue. For example:

              The Soviet Union: The Bolsheviks initially proclaimed that "the arming of the working people" was essential to prevent "restoration of the power of the exploiters". It was only later that they restricted private gun ownership.

              The Nazis: Contrary to popular gun rights narratives, Nazi gun laws actually relaxed restrictions for most Germans while targeting specific groups. Sometimes authoritarianism is the same as populism.

              Rwanda: Prior to the genocide, the government systematically distributed weapons to local administrators and militia groups while ensuring targeted populations remained defenseless.

              Myanmar: Armed civilian resistance groups formed, but the were essentially wiped out by the overwhelming advantages in air power and heavy weaponry that an actual organized military had. The firearms were useless. Arguably, worse than useless as those who fought back died in large numbers.

              Venezuela: The regime armed its supporters while systematically removing weapons from the general population. The population was well armed, they just couldn't fight back against an organized government response.

          • By Thiez 2025-09-268:52

            Perhaps they meant the police as the men with guns doing the stopping, and the states monopoly on violence. I for one wholeheartedly support the police enforcing gun control laws and dealing with armed criminals.

        • By thinkingtoilet 2025-09-2517:591 reply

          >Men with guns stop men with guns.

          Really? Why does America, the country with the most guns by far, have the most gun deaths by far? It's very tiring arguing these very obvious points over and over.

          • By logicchains 2025-09-2518:243 reply

            Nazi Germany, Communist China and Soviet Russia have by far the largest number of deaths by _men with guns_, over a hundred million people killed by their own governments. The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening. The number of people killed by gun violence in the US is a rounding error compared to the number of people killed by Mao, Hitler and Stalin.

            • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:14

              Most people killed by these regimes killed people as aliens. If truly want to compare the actions of the USA, you must also count there handling of there aliens (e.g. in wars).

            • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2520:531 reply

              > The guns of US citizens have so far prevented this kind of government-led mass citizen genocide from happening.

              No they haven't. Our system of checks and balances has. At no point has there been a civil war in which the US's citizens attempted to fight back against the US military. If there were, the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.

              • By hollerith 2025-09-2521:132 reply

                >the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge.

                That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime change on Afghanistan, but were defeated by a group (the Taliban) that had very little military capability beyond men with rifles and some explosives to make improvised bombs. (Yes, they also had decades-old weapons with which to shoot down helicopters.) Algeria's war of independence from France in the 1950s and early 1960s is another example where a group with very little in the way of military capability defeated one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

                I don't necessarily buy the argument that the US should continue with the gun status quo just because all those guns would come in handy in a revolution, but you haven't successfully refuted the argument.

                • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2521:23

                  The Afghanistan bit is over simplified isn't it? My understanding is that the US military successfully imposed regime change between 2001-2003. I doubt those rifles slowed the tanks and bombers much at all.

                  The fact that we packed up and left eventually doesn't really change the fact that the US rolled over the men with guns like they weren't there in the early 2000's.

                • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2521:331 reply

                  The Algerian war doesn't really prove much either, except that terrorism works.

                  The Algerians hid within the population and gradually picked at the French, like flies biting a bull. Eventually the French got bored and wandered off to find a new form of entertainment. If anything the French lost to propaganda, not guns.

                  • By hollerith 2025-09-2521:421 reply

                    >The Algerians hid within the population

                    Yes, but we're discussing a civil war or revolution in the US, where the rebels or revolutionaries would be able to engage in terrorism and to hide within the population -- and where there are so many long guns in private hands that the defending force (the government) probably wouldn't be able to deprive the attacking force (the rebels) of long guns simply by punishing any civilian found with a long gun in their home.

                    • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2521:561 reply

                      My point is that it wasn't the guns that saved the Algerians. Knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equaly effective for the sort of guerilla tactics that eventually won the war.

                      • By hollerith 2025-09-2522:211 reply

                        I find it very unlikely that "knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equally effective". The ALN ambushed French convoys and patrols, raided isolated military outposts and police stations and defended themselves when their camps and zones were attacked. I doubt the ALN could have succeeded in those encounters even one tenth as often as they actually did if they had no access or much worse access to guns (with "success" meaning inflicting casualties on the occupier, avoiding taking casualties, capturing supplies (including guns) and disrupting the occupier's control).

                        There is a reason people say, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

                        The ALN got guns from donors and sympathizers in Egypt and other Arab countries. In later years, the Eastern Bloc and China also contributed supplies, including guns.

                        Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.

                        • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2523:201 reply

                          >Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.

                          Again though, the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular.

                          Howeer, even if I stipulate that the guns are the thing that made the difference it's irrelevant. The Algerians were not legally allowed to own those guns. So the very promise that their right to bear arms is responsible for their victory is unreasonable from the start. They had no such right in Algeria.

                          • By hollerith 2025-09-2523:301 reply

                            >the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular.

                            I don't see how your distinction is relevant. Since 1962, it has been the people the ALN wanted to have power (i.e., not anybody in Europe) who have made all the important policy decisions in Algeria. Since the Taliban took Kabul in Aug 2021, they've made all the important national decisions in Afghanistan. All the US's trillions in spending (and about 2800 American lives lost) gives it no say.

                            • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-2523:511 reply

                              It's relevant because the guns did not stop them from being invaded, or force the invaders to leave. A poorly trained group of insurgents can't defeat a modern military in battle.

                              Politics were ultimately the thing that won the war, and if it happens here the results will be the same. Our 'well regulated militia' of gravy seals won't even slow the military down in battle, it will be up to the citizenry to wear them down gradually.

                              • By hollerith 2025-09-260:191 reply

                                It has been frustrating to dialog with you...

                                • By mapontosevenths 2025-09-261:07

                                  Sorry for that. It wasn't intentional.

                                  I do appreciate your time and the willingness to engage.

    • By jMyles 2025-09-2520:19

      The prevention has to be in the underlying layer of physics / math / the internet such that the state is _unable _ to make (or at least enforce) such laws.

      We need to accept and celebrate a world in which the capabilities of states are constrained by our innovations, not merely the extremely occasional votes we cast.

    • By nilslindemann 2025-09-2518:49

      By implementing direct democracy via internet, which creates laws which disallow that.

      But, amongst a few others, there is a technical problem, how do we log in to vote? That mechanism must be unhackable, configurable by computer illiterates, and it must not invade privacy.

      Serious question.

    • By 6r17 2025-09-2518:31

      This has to be written in the constitution somehow ; it has to comes down to the values of everyone - and i believe a lot of education has to do with it. Currently people are simply not tilted by it as much - or not in a way comparable to other topics.

    • By simianparrot 2025-09-2517:332 reply

      The only real option is to get your country to leave the EU. An unelected cabal of people making sweeping decisions for countless member states isn't democratic, so yeet it while you can.

      • By johnwayne666 2025-09-2517:441 reply

        > An unelected cabal of people

        European Commission: Commissioners are nominated by elected national governments and must be approved by the directly elected European Parliament.

        Council of the EU: Ministers are accountable to their national parliaments, which are elected by citizens.

        European Council: Composed of heads of state/government who were elected in their own countries.

        European Parliament: Members are directly elected by EU citizens every five years.

        • By Xelbair 2025-09-2518:00

          >European Commission: Commissioners are nominated by elected national governments and must be approved by the directly elected European Parliament.

          With so many levels of indirection, that citizen votes are irrelevant and they don't need to care about it - only about support of major political group at the top. And surprisingly enough Parliment is relatively stable.

          >Council of the EU: Ministers are accountable to their national parliaments, which are elected by citizens.

          same as above.

          i don't advocate for leaving the EU, but this needs to change. Those positions, which are the ones pushing for such legislation usually, need to be held accountable by citizens. At least EC.

          No more rotations, or other such bullshit.

          Right now EU is sitting in middle ground between federation and trade union, reaping(from citizens point of view) downsides of both systems.

      • By ulrikrasmussen 2025-09-262:59

        The UK left, but then their politicians just decided to do their own version of chat control

    • By hartator 2025-09-2517:49

      Explicit digital privacy right in each country constitution?

      Priva rights are already there in most countries constitutions, but maybe adding the digital part will make it harder to push back.

    • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-09-2516:352 reply

      There are no solutions to that which wouldn't sound absurd. But if you could get past absurdity...

      Politicians should agree to to be executed if they lose an election. Only those willing to risk their lives should be allowed to legislate. This also gives the voters the option of punishing those who pass onerous laws at the next election.

      If you need extra zing, this would also apply to recall elections, so they could even be punished early.

      • By nathan_compton 2025-09-2516:57

        I think it would be better if they agree to be executed if they win the election, after serving their term.

        Maybe a less extreme version of this is that if you become president you are stripped of all property and become the ward of the state after your term is over, enter a monastery sort of situation, for the rest of your life.

      • By raincole 2025-09-2516:481 reply

        Yeah let's ensure only the craziest, most desperate for power type to be the regulators.

        Hitler knew if he had lost, he would have been executed. Didn't stop him from going war.

        • By inglor_cz 2025-09-2517:021 reply

          One could argue that Putin won't stop the current war against Ukraine for the very same reason. He is obsessed with Gaddafi's undignified end in a ditch and cannot be seen as weak.

          The GP's idea is very bad. Quite to the contrary, losing power should not come with disastrous personal consequences.

          • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-09-2518:02

            If they can't be punished for continuing to push bad laws, then they will continue to push them... because they benefit from those when they inevitably pass. So there are no solutions. You live in a world where Putin still exists, is still doing these godawful things, but the suggestion that if a politician loses an election his life is forfeit makes you fear that the things that already happen would happen. Or something. It's sort of sad.

    • By postepowanieadm 2025-09-2518:10

      Can't be done. It's pushed by the Commission - the technocratic deep state.

    • By delusional 2025-09-2516:491 reply

      > prevent them from being pushed over and over

      Solve the problem it's trying to solve, then it won't be proposed again.

      • By iLoveOncall 2025-09-2516:572 reply

        The problem it's trying to solve is mass surveillance...

        • By brabel 2025-09-2517:262 reply

          The motivation in Denmark was some big cases where organized crime was only caught due to a huge hacking operation where the police was able to monitor communication on the apps commonly used by the criminals. That allowed them to take very dangerous people off the streets and now they want to do more of that, more easily. I think the discussion can never be in terms of absolutes. If your family was murdered by some criminal that was never caught earlier , but could have been if the police had access to their chats, would you still be against it? We need to remember that we’re making that decision for some future victim if we do agree that this will assist the police effectively. The other side says the police will undoubtedly abuse their powers. In which case how does the results compare?? If you think the answer is easy, one way or another, you are definitely wrong.

          • By matthewdgreen 2025-09-2518:16

            But the CSAM regulation under discussion doesn't do any of the things you're claiming. It mandates content scanning for CSAM and other related messages. It does not call for key escrow and decryption of messages involving organized crime. So it's not clear how you would do much against serious organized criminals with this law.

          • By 1718627440 2025-09-2519:18

            Nobody here argues against wiretaps after court rulings. The discussion here is about mandating sending a transcript of every communication you do to the state (unless you work for the specific parts of the state).

        • By delusional 2025-09-2517:102 reply

          You mean like the mass surveillance already implemented by Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon?

          That's already here. I think you should consider that this law might be aiming at some other goal.

          • By happyopossum 2025-09-2517:271 reply

            > You mean like the mass surveillance already implemented by Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon?

            No, GP is referring to mass collection and analysis of all of your communications. Google, Apple, et. all don’t have that capability today.

            Hell, apple can’t even read my text messages, nor do they know I’m writing this - and I’m doing it on an iPhone.

            • By RajT88 2025-09-2517:36

              You only believe that because you have chosen to believe it.

              Take Facebook end-to-end encrypted messages for example. There are certain links it won't let you send, enough though it is supposedly E2EE. (I've seen it in situations like mentioning the piratebay domain name, which it tries to auto-preview and then fails. Hacking related websites as well I've seen the issue with.)

              It likes to pretend it is a mysterious error, but if you immediately send a different link, it sends just fine. I don't use chat apps much these days, so I'm not sure if others see similar behavior, but I'd wager some do. Facebook is about the least trustworthy provider I'm likely to use, FWIW, so I expect a certain amount of smoke and mirrors from them.

          • By blacklion 2025-09-2520:08

            Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon cannot send armed men to my front door.

            Yes, they (well, google and amazon, I don't have accounts with other vendors) can terminate my accounts, but, to be honest, it is not big deal for me, especially comparing to be dragged out of my house by police, especially now, when I live in EU with residence permit and not full citizenship.

  • By astroflection 2025-09-2516:374 reply

    Governments should be transparent and the people should be opaque. Any government that attempts to make things otherwise looses legitimacy.

    • By EasyMark 2025-09-2517:131 reply

      > Governments should be transparent and the people should be opaque.

      I'm going to add this to my repertoire since it's a lot more concise than most of my rantings on the topic

    • By quotemstr 2025-09-2516:441 reply

      Or as someone put it, "People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people."

      I feel like we've lost the vocabulary we ought to be using to talk about the legitimacy and role of the state. More people need to read J.S. Mill (and probably Hobbes.) Even today, works by both are surprisingly good reads and embed a lot of thoughtful and timeless wisdom.

      • By tremon 2025-09-2517:202 reply

        But isn't the government fearing the people exactly why they're relentlessly pushing ChatControl?

        • By Xelbair 2025-09-2518:061 reply

          if they feared the populace, they couldn't push for legislation that entrenches their position without any benefits to citizens.

          • By thfuran 2025-09-2519:08

            US cops fear everyone else, and look what that gets us.

        • By ihsw 2025-09-2518:20

          [dead]

    • By rpdillon 2025-09-2520:00

      Yes, I love this idea. I've heard it framed as "Transparency for the powerful and privacy for the weak."

    • By 3pt14159 2025-09-2518:591 reply

      Governments need privacy. They literally investigate child mollestation cases. They hunt spies. They handle all sorts of messy things like divorce between couples with abuse.

      I'm not commenting on the government coming in at unveiling encrypted communications, but certainly a better approach than "governments should be transparent and the people should be opaque" would be "governments should be translucent and the people should be translucent too".

      • By kevincox 2025-09-2519:36

        There is a clear difference between specific activities that need privacy (especially if it is temporary privacy or cases where it is protecting the privacy of the citizens not the government itself) and privacy by default for most or all government work.

HackerNews