Chat Control: EU will see your private messages
euroweeklynews.com
EU governments have finally agreed on a controversial new law that gives a backdoor to reading text messages and viewing photo messages
  • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
    0·
    12 days ago

    I’m missing a bit the fact that this is not a law yet. This is the position of the commission, which the parliament will then need to approve and has to get past the ECHR as well most likely.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    12 days ago

    misleading headline, this isn’t a list of countries in which the law will (if it passes) be different (it won’t be, it’s an EU law, so will be the same in all EU countries), it’s a list of countries that currently support/oppose the law

    • themurphy@lemmy.ml
      0·
      12 days ago

      (it won’t be, it’s an EU law, so will be the same in all EU countries)

      This is not true btw. It’s not a mandatory law, and if you read the news about this the last 3 weeks, you would know that.

      EU laws are not automatically mandatory. That’s not how it works at all.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        12 days ago

        The law will be the same in all EU countries, including whichever parts you think will be “not mandatory” (I did read those news articles and am fully aware that mandatory scanning is no longer on the table).

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      0·
      12 days ago

      It isn’t misleading (that’d be a technically true headline, which this isn’t). This is a downright lie, or as some might say, “fake news”.

  • sibachian@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    people miss the most important problem with this. chat control is a fascist tool that can and will be used against us minorities. this is especially dangerous when more and more countries are starting to lean right.

    hitler would have had a field day with this kind of tech.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 days ago

      It also makes what the Stasi in Socialist East Germany did to its citizens look harmless in comparison. It’s literally Big Brother, but you carry him around with you.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 days ago

        Isn’t North Korea already a dangerous dictatorship with its citizens in a vice? I don’t think their benevolent leader needs to “get away” with any of the shit he does at this point, or what do you say? Is there any chance of overthrowing him?

      • sibachian@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        danes are sucking thiels cock for their own wicked reasons.

        as we’ve always said; never trust a dane!

  • chaoticnumber@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    Dear mods, watch what you remove from these chats, our freedoms are getting fucked, people should be allowed to be indignant.

    That being said i hope the legislators sit on cacti all day every day, those fucking assholes are exempt from this bullshit.

    They will take my data out of my cold dead hands. It was a matter of time, sure, but I was actually holding on to hope for this one. I am pissed, dismayed even.

    Session, signal, simplex are your friends. If those give up the ghost and bend the knee then we are going back to irc and aliases. Fucking shit!

  • Armand1@lemmy.world
    0·
    12 days ago

    It’s kind of unclear what “voluntary” means. Is it voluntary for countries to enforce? Is it voluntary for companies to scan chats?

      • Armand1@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        In that case, is there any change? Companies could already do that if they wanted. Many of them already did.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      0·
      12 days ago

      The later. However, they could still be fines for not doing what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”, whatever the fuck that can mean when talking about illegal.content

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        0·
        11 days ago

        Where is this explained? the article might be wrong then, because it does state the opposite:

        scanning is now “voluntary” for individual EU states to decide upon

        It makes it sound like it’s each state/country the one deciding, and that the reason “companies can still be pressured to scan chats to avoid heavy fines or being blocked in the EU” was because of those countries forcing them.

        Who’s the one deciding what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”? if it’s each country the ones deciding this, then it’s each country who can opt to enforce chat scanning… so to me that means the former, not the latter.

        In fact, isn’t the latter already a thing? …I believe companies can already scan chats voluntarily, as long as they include this in their terms, and many do. A clear example is AI chats.

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          0·
          11 days ago

          I recommend reading the dutch debate : https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/plenaire_verslagen/detail/2025-2026/17

          And yes, the latter is currently a thing (but in a weaker form) but will no longer be allowed in april 2026, which is why this law is getting pushed so hard. Currently chats can be asked by police/interpol/… But they need good reasons, and the results can be varying because chat platforms like signal do not keep chat messages/stuff.
          The new law forces them to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements. It just allows for ‘any system to get the needed info’, it no longer says chat scanning is needed directly, but is rather indirectly which is as stupid and bad as before.

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            0·
            11 days ago

            Thanks for the link, and the clarification (I didn’t know about april 2026)… although it’s still confusing, to be honest. In your link they seem to allude to this just being a way to maintain a voluntary detection that is “already part of the current practice”…

            If that were the case, then at which point “the new law forces [chat providers] to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements”? will services like signal, simplex, etc. really be forced to monitor the contents of the chats?

            I don’t find in the link discussion about situations in which providers will be forced to do chat detection. My understanding from reading that transcript is that there’s no forced requirement on the providers to do this, or am I misunderstanding?

            Just for reference, below is the relevant section translated (emphasis mine).

            In what form does voluntary detection by providers take place, she asks. The exception to the e-Privacy Directive makes it possible for services to detect online sexual images and grooming on their services. The choice to do this lies with the providers of services themselves. They need to inform users in a clear, explicit and understandable way about the fact that they are doing this. This can be done, for example, through the general terms and conditions that must be accepted by the user. This is the current practice. Many platforms are already doing this and investing in improving detection techniques. For voluntary detection, think of Apple Child Safety — which is built into every iPhone by default — Instagram Teen Accounts and the protection settings for minors built into Snapchat and other large platforms. We want services to take responsibility for ourselves. That is an important starting point. According to the current proposal, this possibility would be made permanent.

            My impression from reading the dutch, is that they are opposing this because of the lack of “periodic review” power that the EU would have if they make this voluntary detection a permanent thing. So they aren’t worried about services like signal/simplex which wouldn’t do detection anyway, but about the services that might opt to actually do detection but might do so without proper care for privacy/security… or that will use detection for purposes that don’t warrant it. At least that’s what I understand from the below statement:

            Nevertheless, the government sees an important risk in permanently making this voluntary detection. By permanently making the voluntary detection, the periodic review of the balance between the purpose of the detection and privacy and security considerations disappears. That is a concern for the cabinet. As a result, we as the Netherlands cannot fully support the proposal.

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              0·
              11 days ago

              Id need to look for it again, but i remember reading she was saying that the current proposal is vague in what it sees as required to prevent what she calls risks. I remember them asking her multiple times if she was against a law to prevent csa and the sharing there off, in which she replied multiple times that she was not, but that the law was too vague about what it constitutes as necessary to prevent it. Did i dream it? ><

              Edit: found it!

              Mevrouw Kathmann (GroenLinks-PvdA):
Het is niet per se alleen zo dat de huidige praktijk wordt voortgezet. Er zitten bijvoorbeeld ook zinnen in het voorstel die aangeven dat álle risico's moeten worden weggenomen. Het is ongelofelijk vaag, een heel grijs gebied, wat dat betekent. Dat is één. Dat is echt een heel groot risico. Daarnaast noemde de heer Van Houwelingen net al het punt van de leeftijdsverificatie. We hebben niet goed met elkaar kunnen bespreken wat daar nou precies in voorligt en hoe wij daar verder mee om moeten gaan. Dit zijn twee dingen die ik er nu zo uitpik.
              • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                0·
                10 days ago

                Ah, I see. I think I interpreted that differently than you did.

                I assumed the ambiguous section would be part of the demands done to the ones who do implement the detection (which are the ones that potentially introduce security risks and risks of other kinds, like privacy breaches), not the ones who don’t implement it.

                I think we would need to actually see the text of the proposal to see where is that expression used that she’s referring to.

                • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  10 days ago

                  Ah, i see. Ye it can be interpreted in different ways, and reading the proposal might clear it up, but i doubt it. Its written extremely vague on purpose

    • dontblink@feddit.itEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      Xmpp, IRC, Matrix, all great decentralized alternatives, but good luck convincing people in contacting you on Xmpp…

      This problem is a problem because it’s a social tendency, not because we don’t have alternatives… Very sadly…

        • CleoCommunist@lemmy.ml
          0·
          12 days ago

          Hi Sorry can i ask what Is XMPP?

          Btw as a secure messgaing app i use simplex, mabye i Will look into matrix

          • visnudeva@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            12 days ago

            It’s an open, decentralized protocol used for real-time messaging, so you can find many apps using this protocol, on android there is conversations which is very light and modern, just choose a pseudo and chat, no other registration, it is a paid app on the app store but free on fdroid. I also used simplex before but it didn’t work well enough, the video calls were laggy.

        • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
          0·
          12 days ago

          I dont see fdroid blocking the app. I think signal is in the guardian project repos. Anyway a repo can just be hosted in switzerland or on tor or something. I would be more worried about govenments blocking access to the signal servers.

          All this theatre in the name of protecting kids, Yet the pedo formally known as prince andrew is still walking free.

      • Gutek8134@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        Write your own E2E encrypted peer-to-peer chat app (nobody has got time for that) or use some that doesn’t care about the law (pretty risky if it’s not open source, I doubt they’ll survive for long in the open), I guess

        • sleen@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          12 days ago

          We are essentially manipulated into the belief that centralised internet is good and all. This is a push driven by the governments where the whole infrastructure is redesigned into essentially a police state where the only thing left is fascism.

          Decentralisation must stay, and developments towards decentralisation must flow faster than ever. If the whole premise of the internet gets breached then it will be officially over, and we will all suffer in oppression.

    • bjrn@feddit.nl
      0·
      12 days ago

      Or Molly (alternative and more secure FOSS Android app for Signal), or Session or SimpleX.

  • DuskyRo@lemmy.world
    0·
    12 days ago

    Welp guys, looks like I’m moving to [insert country without that sh*t] (TBD). Or atleast my router is.

    • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
      0·
      12 days ago

      The implementation is client-side, so this wouldn’t work. It forces all apps to have a client-side backdoor.

  • moretruth@lemmy.ml
    0·
    12 days ago

    Wow, this is bad. I thought this was over when Germany chose not to support it. Apparently not!

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      0·
      11 days ago

      I believe Germany is now in favor of this new proposal, according to https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

      Only Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Poland are against. This seems to be based on “leaked documents from the September 12 meeting of the EU Council’s Law Enforcement Working Party”.

  • dave@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    12 days ago

    Countries which support the implementation of Chat Control:

    Spain, Romania, Portugal, Malta Lithuania, Hungary, Ireland, France, Denmark, Croatia, Cyprus, and Bulgaria.

    Countries that are undecided:

    Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Slovakia, and Sweden.

    Countries which oppose Chat Control:

    Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, Germany, Estonia, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Austria

    • curious_dolphin@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      Can someone help me understand the likely outcome in countries that implement chat control? Will those governments force Google and Apple to remove apps that do not comply (e.g. Signal) from their official app stores? Will those governments somehow detect users who find workarounds and go after them? I figure most people in those countries will shrug their shoulders and move on with their lives, but how will this impact citizens who do not wish to comply?