The CDU is legendary known for its umpteenth attempt to introduce illegal data retention (condemned by Germany's highest court).
The SPD - which is also part of the ruling coalition - is a flag in the wind as it has proven since coming to power. They will do anything to stay in power.
Deep down, Client Side Scanning that's what both want.
No one should remove from us the right to privacy in chat rooms. Otherwise, PGP might become cool again, or I bet that there will be new ways to chat without mass surveillance.
Info: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-die-chat...
"Wichtige Stimmen wie Amnesty International, Reporter ohne Grenzen und der Chaos Computer Club appellieren eindringlich an die Bundesregierung, die Chatkontrolle zu verhindern. Sie warnen vor einem Angriff auf die Pressefreiheit, einem IT-Sicherheitsalptraum und einer Gefahr für die Demokratie."
> Under the guise of protecting children, the latest Chat Control proposals would require mass scanning of every message, photo, and video on a person’s device, assessing these via a government-mandated database or AI model to determine whether they are permissible content or not.
This is pretty terrifying, although not unexpected. Given Germany's aggressive crackdown on speech I wouldn't feel too optimistic. If the BKA is going to launch criminal investigations for calling overweight politicians fat, they're probably not going to protect any rights to private conversation.
The lack of free speech laws in Europe is becoming a serious issue
How would chat control even work, with federated and decentralized networks? This is the reason you should not use signal. Moxie wants everyone to be in a closed loop, tightly controlled by his decisions. Matrix ftw!
I wonder if we can make a chat app that doesn't use encryption but hides your messages inside random words. The solution should be saved locally on your device.
I'm sorry to pick non-technical details, but this PDF is typeset on „Letter” paper, which is immediately noticeable (different aspect ratio). Normally it's on „yeah, whatever” level, but since this paper (sic) aims to influence European policy, now this detail is actually important.
This whole piece reeks „I'm an 1) outsider that 2) couldn't be bothered to get to know local culture so 3) probably has no stake in the affair” and as such is liable to get dismissed after only cursory glance. We know every single enumerated point above is false, but it doesn't matter. That every single word written on the page is right nd warranted, doesn't matter. @Meredith and anyone else writing papers aimed at EU, would you kindly please switch to A4 before exporting the PDF.
this is an objectively funny headline with how it so nimbly jumps from political to technical, “we must stand in a united front against client-side (software feature)” lol
I've been wondering how Chat Control's proponents settled on such a comically villainous name for their project. They didn't even bother being Orwellian. Skeletor could have have come up with "Chat Control"
How does this fit with Apple's pushback against the UK government's encryption backdoor efforts against them? Why aren't Apple also pushing back against this EU initiative?
It's great that signal / open whisper engage in the political situation and the pressure on these states.
We also need to be sure that signal / open whisper / matrix / telegram / everybody continues to make end-to-end encryption available regardless of what politicians say.
Math is bigger than human affairs. There is no shame in breaking laws that prohibit math.
No, not only Germany should stand firmly against this bullshit Brussels tries to push but ALL member states should be. Especially the former soviet republics and other countries of the Eastern Bloc which during communistic times ran censorship offices and security services against their citizens.
Ideas like this shows that there's a power within EU structures that works against us, the citizens.
"For Signal, Chat Control is also an existential threat."
Perhaps it would not be if users could write their own clients and run their oown servers
Perhaps the commercial third party intermediary model of "private" and "secure" communication over the internet (cf. the free, open source, peer-to-peer model) is fundamentally-flawed. This is the model where a third party like Meta or Signal controls the software and requires connections be made to its servers in order to communicate over the internet. It is not an internet service provider, it's just a middleman trying to attract internet subscribers to use its software and connect to its remote servers
Perhaps this proposed legislation is simply leveraging that fundamental flaw
Acording to the latest draft I have seen, "Chat Control" does not attempt to regulate peer-to-peer communication, it does aim to stop internet subscribers from encrypting messages and sending them across the internet. It aims to regulate third party intermediaries providing "messaging services" to the public
The proposed legislation leverages the "centralisation" or "intermediation" of "private" messaging (the opposite of peer-to-peer) in Silicon Valley companies
29 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 54.9 ms ] threadThe CDU is legendary known for its umpteenth attempt to introduce illegal data retention (condemned by Germany's highest court).
The SPD - which is also part of the ruling coalition - is a flag in the wind as it has proven since coming to power. They will do anything to stay in power.
Deep down, Client Side Scanning that's what both want.
Info: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-die-chat... "Wichtige Stimmen wie Amnesty International, Reporter ohne Grenzen und der Chaos Computer Club appellieren eindringlich an die Bundesregierung, die Chatkontrolle zu verhindern. Sie warnen vor einem Angriff auf die Pressefreiheit, einem IT-Sicherheitsalptraum und einer Gefahr für die Demokratie."
This is pretty terrifying, although not unexpected. Given Germany's aggressive crackdown on speech I wouldn't feel too optimistic. If the BKA is going to launch criminal investigations for calling overweight politicians fat, they're probably not going to protect any rights to private conversation.
The lack of free speech laws in Europe is becoming a serious issue
This whole piece reeks „I'm an 1) outsider that 2) couldn't be bothered to get to know local culture so 3) probably has no stake in the affair” and as such is liable to get dismissed after only cursory glance. We know every single enumerated point above is false, but it doesn't matter. That every single word written on the page is right nd warranted, doesn't matter. @Meredith and anyone else writing papers aimed at EU, would you kindly please switch to A4 before exporting the PDF.
1. Have you ever texted someone from EU? You are now chat controlled too.
2. EU is pumping billions to foreign countries to promote EU values. How long until they condition this "help" with chat control?
We also need to be sure that signal / open whisper / matrix / telegram / everybody continues to make end-to-end encryption available regardless of what politicians say.
Math is bigger than human affairs. There is no shame in breaking laws that prohibit math.
Ideas like this shows that there's a power within EU structures that works against us, the citizens.
For the umpteenth time, this isn't an EU initiated agenda. This is certain groups from certain member states pushing this *hard*.
Focus your anger at the correct targets.
Don’t get me wrong, I am happy they are doing what they are doing. But for signal, selling out is not really an alternative.
Perhaps it would not be if users could write their own clients and run their oown servers
Perhaps the commercial third party intermediary model of "private" and "secure" communication over the internet (cf. the free, open source, peer-to-peer model) is fundamentally-flawed. This is the model where a third party like Meta or Signal controls the software and requires connections be made to its servers in order to communicate over the internet. It is not an internet service provider, it's just a middleman trying to attract internet subscribers to use its software and connect to its remote servers
Perhaps this proposed legislation is simply leveraging that fundamental flaw
Acording to the latest draft I have seen, "Chat Control" does not attempt to regulate peer-to-peer communication, it does aim to stop internet subscribers from encrypting messages and sending them across the internet. It aims to regulate third party intermediaries providing "messaging services" to the public
The proposed legislation leverages the "centralisation" or "intermediation" of "private" messaging (the opposite of peer-to-peer) in Silicon Valley companies