33 ms·
German government comes out against Chat Control
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/citizen-protest-halts-chat-control-breyer-celebrates-major-victory-for-digital-privacy/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/citizen-protest-halts-chat-...
- powerhouse007 1y agoAny software mandated by the government should be required to be open source to diminish the incentives for big spyware firms lobbying for their product.
- thevillagechief 1y agoThis rollercoaster is wearing me out. I hope this finally settles it!
- layer8 1y agoI wouldn’t expect the general topic to become “finally settled” within our lifetime.
- fsflover 1y agoUnless there's a law ensuring our freedoms.
- layer8 1y agoLaws can be changed, can be reinterpreted, there are no absolutes. What matters is who is in power, and how powers are kept in check. There is no finality to any of that. It’s a constant process of keeping things up, or failing to keep things up.
- shoubidouwah 1y agoThis is actually one of my own fears for efficient organization at state level and above: - any new technology, any new opportunity either has checks and balances or gets exploited by smart optimizers with no regards for the commons or human flourishing - checks and balances are as you say a constant drain on public attention and resources: you need smart people doing the checking (finite resource), and receptive eyeballs (finite also) - it is thus an optimization problem. attack_surface - check_capacity = societal_explots I worry that the check_capacity term is constrained, but that the attack_surface keeps aexpanding with new technologies. At some point, we started playing whack a mole, frantically jumping from one check to another, and we're holding the fray stochastically. but at some point it's going to become extremely adversarial.
- macintux 1y agoAsk the U.S. lately just how binding those laws are.
- awesome_dude 1y agoEdward Snowden approves of this reminder :)
- schoen 1y agoIt's difficult to entrench things. In the UK they have often said "one Parliament can't bind another Parliament", and in the U.S. it's also sometimes said "one Congress can't bind another Congress". The most obvious mechanism is a constitutional amendment, but in the U.S. the only amendment to be drafted and adopted in modern times is the 26th amendment (1971), 54 years ago. (The 27th amendment had a weird status where it was belatedly adopted with a 200-year delay.) It's hard to imagine many constitutional amendments actually being passed now because it's been challenging to find consensus on many things within U.S. politics lately. I don't know that the EU at a supranational level has any mechanism at all to ban future EU directives. Maybe they could decide to remove something from the list of areas of competence of the EU? But Chat Control is under the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" and I can't imagine the EU deciding that that should be abandoned as an area of Union competence. Edit: The international human rights treaties, at least in regulating law enforcement, have tended not to follow the idea that some kind of regulation or law enforcement power is completely off-limits, but just that they need procedural safeguards -- especially for surveillance and investigatory powers. In this case, Chat Control opponents (including me) would like it to be completely off-limits, but the human rights instruments arguments might more naturally go into "did they create enough surrounding rules and mechanisms about how it's used and how it's regulated?" rather than "can we just say governments just can't make this rule?".
- m12k 1y agoI mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights. The courts would likely strike Chat Control down if it were to pass. But I wish there was a way to prevent our politicians from even trying this shit.
- lxgr 1y agoOther things are enshrined in the EU human rights as well, many of them ultimately contradicting each other if you follow them to their logical conclusion. It's the task of parliaments, governments, and courts to reevaluate and resolve all these contradictions over and over again. It's tedious and takes a lot of resources, but that's the price for democracy.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago> I mean, the right to privacy is already enshrined in the EU's human rights. The constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (i.e. North Korea) famously guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right for the people. That hasn't stopped the government from trampling all over freedom of expression, though. The EU is of course nowhere near North Korea in terms of what is considered acceptable, but don't ever trust that the words in the constitution will be enough to keep the government from doing something.
- lxgr 1y agoGiven that freedom can mean different things even to the same society at different times and in different circumstances, such a law would essentially have to be sentient.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 1y agoChat control very likely violates at least german law, if not EU law too already. As experts as well as the ministry of justice of the previous government in germany have pointed out time and time again. Yet still that was never enough for a clear and definitive "no". It is very likely that the people in favor of this would still try to push it through, or let that happen. They know that the legal battle afterwards to determine its unlawfulness would take years. And during that time it could already be put it place. And once the legal battle is over (and likely won) severe damage is done and they could still adapt the law or just offer companies to continue doing this "voluntarily". And personally I wouldn't count on Apple, Google, or Facebook to roll this back quickly in that case once they've put it into place.
- bigstrat2003 1y agoFreedom will not ever be finally settled in this life. Laws can be changed, constitutions amended, and of course the law is only as good as willingness to enforce it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as nice as it would be if that wasn't so.
- awesome_dude 1y agoAt issue here is... what exactly "freedom" is Speech is restricted the world over for things (fraud, threats, libel/slander, secrets, and more), and we're almost universally in favour of that. It's a balancing act, and the point where we set the balance is difficult, and constantly changing (should we allow speech that encourages the persecution of other people, sometimes called "hate speech" or should people be allowed to advocate for the murder/rape/extermination of other human beings because of the way they look)
- seabass-labrax 1y agoI'm not sure that's relevant to Chat Control. What's at stake here is not a definition of 'acceptable communication' in public, but the possibility of all private communication being scanned. That's not to say that private communication can't already be illegal; mere 'conspiracy' is a crime in many places. Yet the level of surveillance that would be enabled by legislation like Chat Control is greater than any other in history. Even notorious agencies like the Stasi had to pick and choose their targets based on prior suspicion, simply because of the logistics involved in traditional surveillance. We don't fully know what effects this kind of unceasing, universal monitoring would have on society, and what little historical precedent exists doesn't bode well. Restrictions on public speech however are pretty well understood; we've had censorship in various forms pretty much everywhere in the world at one point or another. We can look to history for lessons about what happens, and can properly discuss (even if not agree!) about when censorship is good or bad for society.
- awesome_dude 1y agoMy comment is 100% relevant to the comment I was replying to. (Sometimes I do wish people who down vote were forced to comment why they were making such erroneous decisions)
- tavavex 1y agoI expect it to become settled, just not in the way we want it. Sure, there is the rollercoaster, ups and downs, small wins and losses going on all the time. But look at the general trends - these freedoms that we enjoyed are by and large being chipped away, it's all trending down, worldwide. It's two steps back, one step forward. Maybe CC doesn't get put in place this particular time, but they will ram it through eventually, at some point the right angle will be found to make the right people vote for it. Then the battleground will move onto something even more egregious, and so on. I'm not seeing why there would be a sudden reversal of this trend in the coming decades.
- BlackjackCF 1y agoFrom a non-EU perspective, it seems like the EU tries to push something akin to this every couple of years. So I guess it’s settled for at least a few years…?
- captainkrtek 1y agoIt goes in waves, the forces behind it will continue and keep pushing until they can get it through, its a setback though.
- qoez 1y agoJust imagine some other people will carry the burden and mentally distance yourself from it to relax from it wearing you out. You can take up the burden again later once you've recovered and others are worn out
- swinglock 1y agoIt's working. It will not be settled.
- bradley13 1y agoFinally settled? Forget it. The autocrats will try, try again. In fact, if ChatControl does fail, they have already planned to include this in ProtectEU - a larger package coming soon...
- TimByte 1y agoWould be nice if this actually marked a turning point
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ZeroConcerns 1y agoOK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, something has got to give. Either 'chat' services need to become 'providers of telecoms services' and therefore implement lawful interception laws, or the malware industry will continue to flourish, or something even more stupid will happen Pick your poison.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago> So, something has got to give. Something does have to give: the constant demands for interception capabilities on end-to-end encrypted protocols. Those demands must be thoroughly destroyed every time they rear their head again.
- _cenw 1y agoIt's interesting that this initiative seems to be mostly driven by influential actors in the "online safety" space that want their flawed scanning tech embedded into every device. Thorn is the most public-facing one, but if you dig into advocacy groups you'll find there's a dozen or so more, and they competed for being the technical solution to the UK online safety act too. But if it involves CSAM it's an even more perfect monopoly - only a very select group of people can train these models because the training data is literally illegal to possess. If you needed any indication for how these pseudo-charities (usually it's a charity front and a commercial "technology partner") are not interested in the public good, SafeToNet, a company that up until last year was trying to sell a CSAM livestream detection system to tech companies to "help become compliant" ("SafeToWatch") now sells a locked down Android phone to overprotective parents that puts an overlay on screen whenever naked skin can be seen (of any kind). It's based on a phone that retails for 150 pounds - but costs almost 500 with this app preinstalled into your system partition. That's exceptionally steep for a company that up until last year was all about moral imperatives to build this tech.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jMyles 1y agoA simple way to end the discussion: No matter what the state says, or what legislatures pass what laws, we're going to continue to live out our right to general purpose computing, including sending only what we choose to send over the wire, and encrypting content as we see fit. Now let's talk about something else.
- tokyolights2 1y agoI like the sentiment but it sounds very similar to Soverign Citizen nonsense. You can't just plug your ears and say that a law doesn't apply to you because you didn't consent to it.
- jMyles 1y agoThe reasoning isn't about consent or social contracts, but about the evolutionary trajectory of humankind. By way of example: in the United States, the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of "the press" - it is referenced not by the right to print what one wants, but specifically in reference to the technology of the time, the printing press. It's obvious that our evolutionary trajectory is one in which widely distributed general purpose computing is normal. Making laws that contradict this is just childish, and at some point the adults in the room need to be willing to ignore them.
- zarzavat 1y agoYes you can, it's called civil disobedience. Sovcits are stupid because they break the law but don't know it. Civil disobedience involves breaking the law with full knowledge that it's illegal, to protest injustice.
- sfdlkj3jk342a 1y agoThat works until the government and media successfully push the narrative to the public that anyone using encryption is supporting child molesters and terrorists.
- MYEUHD 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bgwalter 1y ago"anlasslose Chatkontrolle" => Chat Control without cause. Ok, maybe these are not weasel words in this case. The CDU probably wants to present itself as a friend of the people using a popular issue that they don't really care about. My suspicion is that this is exactly why the ChatControl issue is brought up yearly. It distracts people from wars, the economy etc., there is a big discussion and finally the government graciously comes down on the side of the people. Each and every year.
- Zak 1y ago> It distracts people from wars, the economy etc Were this true, some politicians would do it for that reason. It would need to get a lot of attention to be an effective distraction, and it does not. The mainstream press barely covers the issue. Many people who would be directly harmed by it don't even know what's being considered.
- spookie 1y agoYeah, this isn't being covered at all. At least, up to its significance. Most people are computer illiterate too, so it is unlikely they would understand or care either. It's no wonder we see the countries that oppose this as well. Makes one think. Sweden's case is peculiar given their military opposed it. I wonder what's going on there.
- eqvinox 1y agoI mean, there is already "Quellen-TKÜ"¹ for the "with cause" situation… however bonkers that one might be on a modern secure Apple or Android device… ¹ Quelle = source, TKÜ = Telekommunikationsüberwachung = telecommunication surveillance. aka installing trojans on your devices.
- shevy-java 1y agoThis is strange, because not long ago it was Germany (!!) that pushed heavily for mass-sniffing of people. I don't trust this. People should watch very, very carefully what Germany is actually doing next. I would not be surprised if the mass-sniffing comes in a few months when nobody is looking.
- kragen 1y agoZensursula von der Leyen is from the CDU, specifically.
- 1718627440 1y agovan der Leyen was "promoted" to the EU, because she became uncomfortable for Germany and the CDU.
- jasonvorhe 1y agoGermany will not abandon chat control just like the data perseveration they're so keen on. Europe is preparing for war so they need ways to make opposition more difficult. They're just waiting for the opportune moment where the opposition to these acts won't be as organized or is distracted with something else.
- mx7zysuj4xew 1y agoWhat war, against who? I don't know what kind of narrative you are tying to push here but know that any attempt would immediately meet strong opposition (I've seen the graves of Verdun and I for one would do anything to actively undermine and sabotage any kind of active war effort)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y agothe internet is already dying and social media largely sucks. the whole ass thing is going to be 100% ai driven ads, scams, astroturfing, propaganda, trolls and other fuckery sooner rather than later. just let chat control kill it, fuck it. accelerate to a cyberpunk future of local mesh networks.
- lxgr 1y agoWhat makes you think local mesh networks would remain legal?
- JohnLocke4 1y agoIt won't but luckily no government is powerful enough to govern math and therefore cryptography. Mathematics is more of a liberator than the second amendment in this respect. Physical hardware can be controlled, yes. Decentralization and obfuscation similar to TOR is probably needed here.
- IG_Semmelweiss 1y agoCryptography is privacy. Privacy can taken away by law. It is the same as free speech. You can say what you want, but you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing in many countries.
- lxgr 1y agoAh yes, fortunately governments have never in history successfully declared certain large integers illegal and prosecuted people for sharing them. Shooting someone is also "just physics", yet many governments have been known to frown upon it (depending on the context).
- dylan604 1y agoYou'll be okay as long as you print them on a t-shirt
- 1y ago
- HNrenewables 1y ago[dead]
- dubbel 1y agoHad to double check the original account because I was worried about falling for an AI-generated video (account is legit). Weird times. Article in German: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfraktion-jetzt-gegen-chatkontrolle-innenministerium-will-sich-nicht-aeussern/ https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr...
- John23832 1y agoWell that kills it.
- ho_schi 1y agoThe CDU/CSU is doing something good. That didn't happened for a long time? I appreciate it. Ausgerechnet Spahn. Manchmal glaubt man seinen Augen und Ohren nicht. Wir müssen Wachsam bleiben. Mit dem Argument das es böse Menschen gibt, wurde schon viel böses getan. Massenüberwachung zerstört jede Gesellschaft. Deutschland hat mehrfach darunter gelitten. Und die Versuche Massenüberwachung einzuführen wiederholen sich.
- petre 1y agoMaybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? Or maybe this course of action is just more convenient at this time? Probably the latter.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Maybe they've learned something from history and they're not doing the AfD a service before they grab onto more power? The lesson from history is to keep the autocrats from grabbing power. Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero. I'm not sure Berlin opposing Chat Control fits into their domestic anti-authoritarian arc.
- xethos 1y ago> Trying to contrain them with laws ex ante hasn't worked since like Cicero This isn't so much about making Chat Control illegal (thereby containing or limiting future authoritarians) as it is not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election. I'd argue the current stance of being opposed to Chat Control is more like "Don't collect religious affiliation on the census" - meaning we can both agree with your comment I partially quoted, while also recognizing that Berlin's public oppostion can be meaningful.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> not setting up the infrastructure for them to wield as soon as they win an election Fair enough, you’re right. If they’re incompetent authoritarians (or just non-authoritarian right-wingers), this could mitigate the damage.
- codethief 1y agoNetzpolitik.org says it's not decided yet: https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfraktion-jetzt-gegen-chatkontrolle-innenministerium-will-sich-nicht-aeussern/ https://netzpolitik.org/2025/eu-ueberwachungsplaene-unionsfr... Jens Spahn, the speaker in the video OP shared, is not a member of the government but a leading member of the parliament and of one of the ruling parties. A tiny but important difference.
- whycombinetor 1y agoMy American brain: "The legislature is a branch of the government!"
- baxtr 1y agoNot OP but my guess: they were thinking administration in this case.
- codethief 1y agoTrue, I guess I was thinking of the meaning of "government" in German for a second. Either way, though, if you consider "government" to include all three branches (executive, legislative, judicative), then there is really no way for the "the" government to take a stance on any issue, so "German government comes out against Chat Control" would be a rather nonsensical headline.
- baxtr 1y agoThe original post linked says: "ruling party…". The term government was added by the poster I guess.
- pacificmint 1y ago> but a leading member of the parliament I think ‘a leading member’ is underselling it a little. He is the “Fraktionsvorsitzender”, which is comparable to the majority leader in the US Senate.
- mattlutze 1y agoI am so happy to see this. The German social perspective on privacy has been strongly for the individual over the state for a long time. Chat Control goes too far, and Germany should be a loud voice in the heavy moderation of state surveillance powers.
- voldacar 1y agoThe EU tries something like this every few years. If you don't want this to happen, you have to win every time, while they only have to win once. It's an unsustainable situation.
- serbuvlad 1y agoYep. And that's exactly why the EU has the structure it does. Unfortunately the only country that ever left proceeded to shoot itself in both knees, light itself on fire and jump in a pool of gasoline. For NO reason.
- was_a_dev 1y agoThere were reasons, they just weren't good ones
- chr15m 1y agoJust like breathing, sleeping, and eating, you will always have to oppose tyranny. People who seek control will always try to get more. As long as ordinary people sustain strong opposition in word and deed it is sustainable, just like breathing.
- brikym 1y agoIt's not going to get reversed once they're able to analyze all comms automatically for wrong think and stop 'extremist groups' because something 'Nazi'. The Stati letter steamers could only dream of such a system.
- ranguna 1y agoAnd we only have to win once to reverse it.
- munksbeer 1y agoEvery thread on this I have to post the same thing, which I hope will make people inform themselves, because we need our attention to be directed at the correct people. > The EU tries something like this every few years. This is NOT the EU trying it (I'm not even sure you know what you mean when you say "The EU"). This is certain groups of politicians from certain EU member states raising it again and again. Please keep yourselves informed, don't spread an incorrect message, because this is an important issue to fight and needs accurate information.
- saubeidl 1y agoGood job Germany. This would've absolutely killed any respect I've had for the EU.
- usrxcghghj 1y agothis needs locked down legally. i feel like it will just come up again in another year.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- powerhouse007 1y agoAnyone who researched this topic knows one thing about cp: it's not made by predators, it's made by children. Overwhelmingly. It's a lame excuse. They are using the A word exactly like they used the self-A word for self-pleasure a few decades earlier. Raise your hand who's never used your phone to create some A word material as a child.
- LargoLasskhyfv 1y agoIn my eyes this is just a technicality. "Mit der CDU/CSU wird es keine anlasslose Chatkontrolle geben, wie sie von einigen Staaten in der EU gefordert wird." Anlass is cause/reason here, so keine anlasslose literally translated means: not without cause/reason. What about "reasonable causes", and the infrastructure enabling those? Be it legal/bureaucratic/technical? IMO it's already in place, mostly, and got abused many times, already. This is just "weasel wording", changing nothing for so called "lawful interception". If you got flagged by some algorithm somewhere, or got reported by someone behind your back, there will be Anlass! Automagically... Because neither the algorithms, nor the organizations handling the flagging, enabling the reporting are transparent. They are unaccountable (to the public/affected) black boxes by design, be it for economic, organizational, or political reasons. Inevitably leading to kafkaesque absurdities like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
- DocTomoe 1y agoThat's the main crux with the current EU proposition: that they want to surveil all chat, regardless of whether the citizen involved is suspected of a crime. Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?
- indigo945 1y ago> Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge > has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more > acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats? The problem is that it's not technologically possible. Many major messaging apps - including WhatsApp, which is the market leader by far in Europe - provide end-to-end encryption, and have done so for years. After a judge has ruled that an individual's WhatsApp chats are to be surveilled, how would you achieve this? In the current situation, there's just nothing you can do. You might try to wiretap the phone, but there's really not that many zero-days left: both iOS and Android are quite secure these days, so this isn't even an alternative. The only way to make court-mandated surveillance possible is to ensure that nobody's chat is encrypted to begin with, such that after a court order has come in, the data can be easily read. So to outlaw end-to-end encryption entirely is what this proposal is really about: break privacy guarantees for everybody to enable surveillance in a few outlier cases. Of course, once encryption has been broken, three-letter agencies the world over will be reading your chats whether they have a warrant or not. There is no way to have private communication for good people only. Either you have freedom for all, or freedom for none.
- frm88 1y agoThere is a last minute petition from Chatkontrolle stoppen which you can sign here: https://weact.campact.de/petitions/chatkontrolle-stoppen?source=rawlink&utm_medium=recommendation&utm_source=rawlink&share=27784304-b8a9-4df6-b712-0e4ab21a2faa https://weact.campact.de/petitions/chatkontrolle-stoppen?sou... Edit: 234K signatures at the time of this posting.
- marenkay 1y agoStay vigilant. Our German conservatives will repeat the process to restrict our human rights over and over until it slips through the cracks. It's funny how politicians want laws against issues for which they usually are the guilty party.
- DocTomoe 1y agoUnfortunately, that's not a "German conservatives" thing, but very much a "German politicians" thing.
- raxxorraxor 1y agoNot only conservatives. Social democrats now positioned themselves against this, but they only do when convenient. They very much support increased surveillance attempts. But if you look up past decisions, you will quickly notice that they have very similar ambitions here. At some point they were against ISP saving connection info, only to switch in the last moment and then fully support and even pushing for it. Aside from privacy violations, this did not have any positive effect on crime at all. It also showed that the German constitution is more or less a paper tiger.
- z3ratul163071 1y agoi was about to rage about this xcancel being some kind of woke tantrum, but actually the idea is not bad: https://xcancel.com/about https://xcancel.com/about
- TimByte 1y agoThis is a rare bit of good news on the privacy front
- yason 1y agoOnline control is like a squatter waiting for years in the bushes on your yard and it only takes one time that you forget to lock your door and he sneaks in and claims he lives in your home, and uses all possible legal loopholes to prevent any imminent relocation. A pedigree of chatcontrols has already been turned down several times in the past but there's nothing stopping it from being raised from the dead a couple of years later over and over until it finally passes. And then it's very much impossible to unpass.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- latexr 1y agoWhat’s your point? That you should just give up and invite the squatter in? Serve him a cup of tea while you’re at it, and give him the house? That brand of defeatism has been spewed every step of the way every time. If everyone thought like you, the first version of Chat Control would have passed. But it didn’t. And even if it eventually does, later is better than sooner. Later is worth fighting for. Look, it’s fine if you yourself want to personally give up, this is tiring. But please don’t rub your despondency on the people who are trying to fight for something which benefits you. You’re not helping. On the contrary, you’re making it worse for everyone, including yourself. Every time you make that sort of comment, you’re helping those who want to oppress you. Either join the fight or move aside.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bArray 1y agoI didn't realise Nitter was working again [1]. It's a shame that they made is so hostile to interface with Twitter/X. [1] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
- jll29 1y agoCitizens' ignorance is a larger danger than government action today, because politicians are sensitive to citizens' (=voters') behaviors. Most people think they have nothing to hide and because "I'm not a terrorist they can watch me". They really did not learn from their parent's generation (Gestapo, Stasi).