Chat Control proposal fails again after public opposition

Posted by speckx 11/1/2025

Chat Control proposal fails again after public opposition(andreafortuna.org)

595 points | 157 commentspage 3

tombot 11/1/2025|

sorry, but why is this plastered with ads?

baobun 11/1/2025||

Someone bribed the website operator to put them there. It happens more than you think.

lysace 11/1/2025||

You have to use an adblocker on mobile these days. On iOS it’s tricky with Chrome. Use e.g. Brave or Vivaldi instead. It’s built-in.

munro 11/1/2025||

I love the irony of the site showing a MASSIVE banner with a huge green "Download Extension for Mac (Free)" button.

This thing is 280px tall! I clicked it for shits and giggles and upon returning it showed a popup XD

https://files.catbox.moe/sv7hb7.png

> Only 2 Steps (thx)

> Click "Download"

> Add Privacy Guard for Chrome™

Don't worry why I'm not using ad block

tagyro 11/1/2025|

https://files.catbox.moe/dbbh71.jpg

yeah, hard pass

Maken 11/1/2025||

Why does a static blog need to store user information?

tagyro 11/13/2025||

it's in the picture: personal advertising

[I know you were sarcastic, just wanted to make it clear for ...future generations]

creamcrackered 11/1/2025||

[flagged]

zweifuss 11/1/2025||

"Chat Control" is mass surveillance, not targeted Action. Targeted action mayhaps needs some readjustment, but by and large is already easy to obtain for law enforcement.

Normalizing mass surveillance would set a precedent for authoritarian regimes worldwide to demand similar access, further eroding privacy and human rights on a global scale.

I also oppose it on technical grounds, since it would be some kind of local or hybrid ai that does the scanning. A high number of false positives harming innocents would certainly be the result.

derektank 11/1/2025|||

New technology (cheap sensors, machine intelligence models) is already providing law enforcement with a wide array of new tools for identifying and building a legal case against people committing crimes. I don't see any reason to believe the law will somehow become unenforceable without gimping encrypted communications.

jgilias 11/1/2025|||

Communications surveillance is unconstitutional in my EU country.

Aqua 11/1/2025|||

No we don't.

creamcrackered 11/1/2025||

[flagged]

Zigurd 11/1/2025|||

The US already has vastly more law-enforcement and incarceration than any nation needs. US law enforcement is over equipped with arms and technology already. We need many fewer, but more academically qualified and much better trained law-enforcement.

cm2012 11/1/2025||

Almost every European country has a higher ratio of police officers to citizens than the USA. We actually have 50% fewer officers per person than europe.

Zigurd 11/1/2025||

The nordics and England have a lower ratio, while Italy and most of Eastern Europe is lousy with cops. Lots of European cops are unarmed and low paid. Police in the US are also hideously expensive.

DanHulton 11/1/2025||||

That which is presented without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

Thus, no we don't.

cael450 11/1/2025||||

We live in the safest time in human history. Law enforcement doesn’t need anything.

jgilias 11/1/2025||||

Yes, _they_ might need it. Not we.

creamcrackered 11/1/2025||

[flagged]

stickfigure 11/1/2025|||

Some of their work benefits us all. Unfortunately, some of their work is also rooting out homesexuals, making sure you can't buy sex toys, putting people in jail for smoking weed, and making sure everyone votes for the guys in charge.

Zigurd 11/1/2025||||

In theory it should. In practice, we're funding thick neck thugs with retrograde ideas about race and sexuality to go around intimidating people when they disrespect those thick neck thugs.

kelseyfrog 11/1/2025||||

How long have you been a cop?

anthk 11/1/2025|||

Hail to the Big Brother

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 11/1/2025|||

As long as they serve fascist governments they can suffer. Trust is earned not handed over at gunpoint

embedding-shape 11/1/2025|||

> as a society we do need some sort of targeted backdoor into communications

So just blanket "no private communication for anyone"? I mean, why shouldn't people be able to communicate privately? There is no such thing as a "single owner of backdoors", so why try play that game when it never ends with just a single owner?

creamcrackered 11/1/2025||

Mostly private, but with proportionate exceptions.

For instance, law enforcement agencies can receive legal authority to wiretap your phone if they can present reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that must be investigated.

embedding-shape 11/1/2025||

> law enforcement agencies can receive legal authority to wiretap your phone

If you want that, you have to also be OK with other parties being able to do so too, as there currently doesn't exists any solutions to that specific problem of just letting one party accessing something without the risk of leaks.

SoftTalker 11/1/2025|||

If there was a way to ensure it was done only with a warrant and they weren’t hoovering up and scanning everything then perhaps. Is there a way this could be done?

vb-8448 11/1/2025|||

> as a society we do need some sort of targeted backdoor into communications

why you are assuming this is true?

creamcrackered 11/1/2025||

Because it allows law enforcement agencies and intelligence services to do their work.

vb-8448 11/1/2025|||

oh man ... it's so wrong on so many levels ...

first of all it's not true, law enforcement are already doing their work today without chat control.

In case we have massive chat control, do you really expect criminals to send plain text messages via whatsapp/telegram/ecc? They will use custom-made solutions(btw they are already using them ...) to circumvent the chat control.

Even if they will be forced to use whatsapp, they can easily add an extra layer of encryption that will totally circumvent the chat control ... and the only thing we will have are governants able to know every single aspect of our life ...

rstat1 11/1/2025|||

That they presently have no problems doing without this crap, so proving that they don't need it.

scrps 11/1/2025||

I think a more elegant solution would simply be to assign everyone a minder to monitor in real time, it is simpler than securely back-dooring (hell of an oxymoron) encryption systems and you get the added bonus of massive employment numbers.

In fact the minder's minder could be the minder's charge and you get 100% employment.

(/s)

polski-g 11/1/2025|

United States should revoke visas for individuals and their family members who engage in talks of such proposals, and remove maritime protection for ships registered in countries doing likewise.