This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.
For context:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
Any time a scumbag politician tries this again:
"Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?"
It would stop fast.
Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.
> This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EU
It had already passed and started?
Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.
Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no.
Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get around to striking it down in 15 years.
Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
You described 95% of EU's work.
Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote.
> After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...
Less tight.
> In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public opposition, the German government stated that it would vote against the proposal
German MEPs also voted against this one.
(Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the same thing here.)
> The European Commission wants a backdoor for end-to-end encryptions for law enforcement
https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/the-european-commissi...
I am having a deja vu. Groundhog Day.
The above should be adjusted. This is not an end; it will continue in another form. Another name. Another proposal. The lobbyists behind this will not give up. They are paid to not give up.
I don't think any of those few should have ANY power of us, The People. That includes both EU commission as well as EU parliament. Yes, I know the EU parliament is heralded now as "our heroes". I don't trust any of them at any moment in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th.... And that's just one known issue. How many more unknown issues are there?
Also, Leyen should go. She is too suspiciously close to a few companies, always promoting things. She did so before her time in the EU too.
They even used a teddy bear image.
https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-...
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
- Internet Watch Foundation
- Internet Society
- Match Group
- Microsoft
- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)
- UNICEF
- UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation that permanently strengthens privacy rights.
The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's very interesting.
-The Spying Menace
-Attack of the conservatives
-Revenge of the marketing conglomerate
-A new hope
-Chat Control strikes back
-Return of the Pirate Party
Etc,etc.
> We decide something, then put it in the room and wait some time to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no uprisings, because most do not understand what it is about, then we continue - step by step until there is no turning back. – Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the EU Commission
They will try this again. And again. And again. They will never stop.
They are not your friends.
Until we meet again.
Now let's start preparing for the next one.
Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.
We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic.
Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-We...
And back then already it was the so called center-right party ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control freedom of speech.
Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to certain voices or appeal to prohibition.
Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they apply the law.
Freedom rights are fundamental.
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.
The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups", majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164 votes).
it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation is no longer in effect.
Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past instances of check control came up against key procedural hurdles.
> The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0]
> The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1]
> Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1]
(Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade)
> No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2]
[0] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-00016...
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-...
The age verification also has nothing to do with children.
They are using rhetorical tricks to confuse voters who are clueless. I have seen how this works on elderly people in particular, and mothers who are not tech-savvy.
Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament).
But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
They really have no shame, do they? https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66772846
Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:
> Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom.
[1] https://people.com/tv/danny-masterson-church-scientology-sue...
https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/socialists-are-responsible-...
In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries.
One: Passing legislation takes as much work as repealing it; but unpassed legislation has no force of law. Being on the side that's keeping legislation from being passed is the stronger position. You have the status quo on your side. (The only stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from being repealed. Then you have both the status quo and force of law on your side.)
Two: Legislative wants are unlimited. Once a group has invested into political machinery and organisation, they're not going to go home after passing their law. Thus, repeatedly failing to pass a law represents a successful bulwark. It's a resource sink for the defense, yes. But the defense gets to hold onto the status quo. The offense is sinking resources into the same fight, except with nothing to show for it. (Both sides' machines get honed.)
Each generation tends to have a set of issues they continuously battle. The status quo that persists or emerges in their wake forms a bedrock the next generations take for granted. This is the work of a democracy. Constantly working to convince your fellow citizens that your position deserves priority. Because the alternative is the people in power killing those who disagree with them.
Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if"
The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies
But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy
Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into
Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever.
It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
So to him they are probably left-wing.
It’s a double-edge sword though: if something you dislike gets votes, it’s never going away.
Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.)
Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
That most implementation will try to collect far more data is the real concern.
For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
> directly elect some kind of president
We do not need a president with over-powers, and electing directly one does not solve anything for democracy, as the recent history in countries like the US and France shows. The point of directly electing a president is giving that role more power. The current structure in the EU is not so much president-centric either executive or legislative wise, but more like comission-centric, which is what imo has the biggest problem in terms of democracy in the EU.
Many EU nations are not presidential, and personally I prefer parliamentary republics than presidential ones.
They do.
> directly elect some kind of president
I get the impression you're coming at it from a US perspective, and it's not that, and doesn't intend to be for now. The president is elected by majority of the MP's who have been elected by the people of their respective countries. Almost like the US electorial system, except it's done internally because people generally only vote for their own best interests and not that of the entirety.
Perfect, no, it can be slow and a lot of red tape, but what system isn't flawed.
And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done.
In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names.
Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
If anything it proves the opposite.
Look at how laws are passed in russia for example for comparison and let me know what similarities you see.
Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.
You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
...
We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for?
> directly elect some kind of president.
Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Americas and Africa (plus Russia, these days).
Like, in terms of big countries with a true executive presidency, you’re basically looking at the US, Russia and Brazil. I’m, er, not sure we should be modeling ourselves on those paragons of democracy.
> They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
The parliament has the same accountability and checks and balances as any national parliament, more or less (more than some, as the ECJ is more effective and independent than many national supreme courts).
And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes.
> Also compared to whom?
Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control.
> You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
Of course they are and of course there is. The "EU passed a temporary derogation" to the ePrivacy Directive in 2021 "called Chat Control 1.0 by critics" [1]. That is now dead [2].
> if something you dislike gets votes, it’s never going away
How do you say this in 2026? Across the world's democracies, precedent smashing has been in vogue across a variety of issues.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control#Legislative_proce...
While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former.
I thought Juncker was an idiot but VdL is corrupt to Hillary levels and worse than the disastruous Merker/Juncker duo in every way. I'd like to see her replaced with someone like Macron. That's the type of leadership that the EU needs right now.
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children.
Well, that's because she was nominated by European governments, which happen to be largely run by right-wing parties right now. There have been socialist personalities in her place in the past. That has nothing to do with democracy.
Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
At the end of the day you still need people to actually believe it, for whatever "it" is.
give everyone half a dozen votes or more, and and you'll get a more representative sample.
for example instead of electing a president, elect a while leadership team. independent of party affiliation. (i'd get rid of parties completely while we are at it, every candidate should be independent (the expanded version of that gets even rid of candidates, every adult can potentially be elected, but that is a more complex system that needs more elaboration))
You're inverting roles here.
Just look at the UK and how crazy they've gone now that the EU can't shoot their ideas down anymore.
If you think Chat Control doesn't have paid lobbyists on both sides I have a bridge to sell you. Also, paying lobbyists is still sinking resources. And the people taking their meetings are still sinking political capital into a fight that has–to date–yielded zilch.
> while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former
The principal moneyed interests in this fight are the tech companies. Your taxes aren't funding their fight. The police lobby is less effective if filtered through paid lobbyists versus having a police chief personally pitch lawmakers.
imagine system where we directly elect the whole cabinet. only people with electoral approval should get to be ministers. and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
Probably it is not taught as part of the curriculum in Russia.
> insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
Didn't the UK do exactly this?
Yes, I can absolutely see a majority in certain countries (e.g. Hungary) believing this is a fair compromise between security and privacy.
I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.
Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the right and far right voted for, left and center left voted against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.
From the point of view of the individual, the parliament is our first defense. And this is an example of it working
It's when laws can exist, but simply have bad implementations, where you obviously can't jump to an amendment process.
And no, this isn't dog whistling violence. It is simply applying signal. The only other message I can think of is engaging an investigative journalist/PI and starting to figure out who is lobbying the person, and start pressuring them.
Generally, a prime minister is less powerful than an executive president, often much less powerful.
> and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only manage that group.
On the face of it, that is the PM's primary role in a parliamentary democracy. Now, the complication is that, in many parliamentary systems, the PM has significant power over the ministers (either via the ability to directly appoint them, or via being the head of the ruling party/coalition/or various other means). But generally, the PM is less powerful in nearly all systems than, say, the US president; in particular the finance minister is often a separate semi-independent power within the cabinet.
Why do you keep lying?
How is that an EU problem? Without the EU, like here in the UK, we had non-elected lobbyists pressuring our elected government to implement age checks, message scanning, etc. And it is still continuing.
You're fighting the wrong fight by blaming the EU for this.
It's like on the Apollo missions where some parts were made by two completely different manufacturers and worked completely differently.
Hybrid political systems are best. Of course if we like democracy (and most people do), then that should be the most common kind of component. But I'd still like to have some different paradigms mixed into the system. And that's exactly what most modern constitutions do, for better or for worse.
Why exclude teachers from picking the education minister? If we're restricting votes, shouldn't they be the only ones doing so instead?
Even if there was an option in the national elections that didn't want this stuff, convincing a majority of voters to disregard national politics for an election cycle to have an imperceptibly small impact on the council members is such an unlikely outcome the council or comission would de facto be committing genocides before voters would be mobilized, and even then it's unlikely they'd face any repercussions.
Years after harm was done and lives were ruined no less.
EU has checks and balances that were intended for a trade union, not a nascent superstate. If we don't implement proper checks and balances in a real fucking hurry, we'll wake up one morning and realize the EU has turned into another Soviet union, and by then it'll be far too late to do anything about it.
Maybe also a 3rd chamber, where the weight of your vote was proportional to IQ (much more palatable in EU than US).
If accountability is to work, it has to be more than an abstract theoretical possibility.
They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to purge jews?
The controversial mass surveillance of private messages in Europe is coming to an end. After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway.
However, in a true voting thriller today, the Parliament finally pulled the plug on this surveillance mania: With a razor-thin majority of just a single vote, the Parliament first rejected the automated assessment of unknown private photos and chat texts as “suspicious” or “unsuspicious”. In the subsequent final vote, the amended remaining proposal clearly failed to reach a majority.
This means: As of 4 April, the EU derogation will expire for good. US corporations like Meta, Google, and Microsoft must stop the indiscriminate scanning of the private chats of European citizens. The digital privacy of correspondence is restored!
The Myth of a Legal Vacuum
This does not create a legal vacuum—quite the opposite. Ending indiscriminate mass scanning clears the path for modern, effective child protection. Fearmongering that investigators will be “flying blind” is unwarranted: Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway. Social media and cloud storage services are becoming increasingly relevant for investigations. Targeted telecommunications surveillance based on concrete suspicion and a judicial warrant remains fully permissible, as does the routine scanning of public posts and hosted files. User reporting also remains fully intact.
Digital freedom fighter and former Member of the European Parliament Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) commented on today’s historic victory:
“This historic day brings tears of joy! The EU Parliament has buried Chat Control – a massive, hard-fought victory for the unprecedented resistance of civil society and citizens! The fact that a single vote tipped the scales against the extremely error-prone text and image search shows: Every single vote in Parliament and every call from concerned citizens counted!
We have stopped a broken and illegal system. Once our investigators are no longer drowning in a flood of false and long-known suspicion reports from the US, resources will finally be freed up to hunt down organized abuse rings in a targeted and covert manner. Trying to protect children with mass surveillance is like desperately trying to mop up the floor while leaving the faucet running. We must finally turn off the tap! This means genuine child protection through a paradigm shift: Providers must technically prevent cybergrooming from the outset through secure app design. Illegal material on the internet must be proactively tracked down and deleted directly at the source. That is what truly protects children.
But beware, we can only celebrate briefly today: They will try again. The negotiations for a permanent Chat Control regulation are continuing under high pressure, and soon the planned age verification for messengers threatens to end anonymous communication on the internet. The fight for digital freedom must go on!”
The Next Battle: The Return of Chat Control and Mandatory ID
Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control.
Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
Background: What exactly expires on 3 April
An EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 April, currently permits US corporations such as Meta to carry out indiscriminate mass scanning of private messages on a voluntary basis. Three types of chat control are authorised: scanning for already known images and videos (so-called hash scanning, which generates over 90% of reports); automated assessment of previously unknown images and videos; and automated analysis of text content in private chats.
The AI-based analysis of unknown images and texts is extremely error-prone. But the indiscriminate mass scanning for known material is also highly controversial, too: beyond the unreliability of the algorithms documented by researchers, these scans rely on opaque foreign databases rather than European criminal law. The algorithms are blind to context and lack of criminal intent (e.g. consensual sexting between teenagers). As a result, vast numbers of private but criminally irrelevant chats are exposed.
New Study Proves: Chat Control Software is Flawed
The fact that today’s decision by the EU Parliament was also technically imperative is proven by a newly published scientific study. Renowned IT security researchers analyzed the standard algorithm “PhotoDNA”, which is used by tech companies for Chat Control. Their damning verdict: The software is “unreliable”. The researchers proved that criminals can render illegal images invisible to the scanner through minimal alterations (e.g., adding a simple border), while harmless images can be easily manipulated so that innocent citizens are falsely reported to the police.
The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly
The EU Commission’s 2025 evaluation report on Chat Control reads like an admission of complete failure:
During the legislative process, foreign-funded lobby groups and authorities tried to pressure the Parliament through fearmongering. A comparison of their claims with reality:
Disinformation 1: “The European Parliament is to blame for the collapse of the trilogue negotiations.”
(Claimed by the lobby alliance ECLAG and US tech companies)
Disinformation 2: “Without indiscriminate Chat Control, law enforcement will be flying blind.”
(Claimed by authorities including BKA President Holger Münch)
Disinformation 3: “The deployed scanning technology is highly precise.”
(Claimed by Meta, Google, Microsoft, Snap, TikTok)
Disinformation 4: “The demand comes primarily from victims.”
(Implied by the ECLAG campaign)
The European Parliament advocates a genuine paradigm shift for future legislation, supported by civil society, survivor networks, and IT security experts:
Bought Fearmongering by the Lobbying Machine
During the legislative process, the massive, questionable lobbying efforts were exposed: The push for Chat Control is heavily driven by foreign-funded lobby groups and tech vendors. The US organization Thorn, which sells the exact type of scanning software in question, spends hundreds of thousands of euros lobbying in Brussels. The tech industry officially lobbied side-by-side with certain organizations for a law that does not protect children, but rather secures their own profits and data access.
Patrick Breyer concludes:
“Right up to the very end, the US tech industry and foreign- or government-funded lobby groups tried to panic Europe. But flooding our police with false positives and duplicates from mass surveillance doesn’t save a single child from abuse. Today’s definitive failure of Chat Control is a clear stop sign to this surveillance mania. Negotiators cannot ignore this verdict in the ongoing trilogue negotiations for a permanent regulation. Indiscriminate mass scanning of our private messages must finally give way to truly effective and targeted child protection that respects fundamental rights.”
If the EU were to not exist, your representatives in the Council/Commission (e.g. your national government) would be more powerful because they wouldn't be checked by the Parliament, not less.
Your problem is with your government, they just successfully deflected it to the EU in your mind.
Again, why are you aggressively lying here? Why are you misrepresenting workings of EU despite them following every single democracy out there?
