logoalt Hacker News

Fight Chat Control

1323 pointsby tokailast Sunday at 4:50 PM423 commentsview on HN

Comments

throwaway89201last Sunday at 8:34 PM

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups.

The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating pornographic content online without putting in place robust and effective age verification tools to effectively prevent children from accessing pornographic content online shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year."

It's not law yet, as the first reading is now sent back to the Council of the European Union, but I don't think it's very likely it will get a second reading.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-011...

show 12 replies
Disposal8433last Sunday at 7:05 PM

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS (https://grapheneos.org/donate). Democracy is dead for me.

show 19 replies
lucideerlast Sunday at 7:47 PM

A little context here since this website is highly misleading:

- EU Council holds more power in Europe than EU Parliament

- EU Council is pushing this regulation

- this website misrepresents the positions of most members of EU Parliament - it shows "Supports" despite most of them being "Unknown"

Overall, while people should be encouraged to contact their MEPs, I suspect many are already very informed on this & strongly opposed. Whether Parliament will end up having enough power to stop it is a different question.

show 5 replies
josh2600last Sunday at 9:40 PM

This is actually one of the major fights of our generation.

If signal/whatsapp/e2ee are desecrated, only criminals will have encryption for a short period of time until we all come to our senses and realize that some semblance of personal privacy is a human right.

IMHO, we should fight for the maximum amount of privacy possible within the context of a civil society.

In every generation there is a battle, sometimes quiet, other times a dull roar, and occasionally a bombastic. This battle is who can oversee who.

Surveillance should be the last resort of a free society.

show 2 replies
phendrenad2last Monday at 2:39 AM

The end of anonymity online basically means an end to the internet era itself. We will effectively be rewinding time to the 1980s, when the only news sources were controlled by oligopolies, and dissident voices were simply not given a platform.

That might be fine in a world where every country is on-board, but now that the internet exists, countries with anonymous free speech will come out ahead.

Here's a darker thought: The pre-internet US and UK had a crime problem. Crime was spiking through the 1980s and 1990s. People were disaffected, jaded, they felt that the halls of power were captured by corruption and their voice didn't matter. This is the environment that gave us the original Robocop movie, a hyper-violent celebration of the commoner over both criminals and corrupt government institutions.

The internet economy revitalized the western world and helped us pull out of the crime doom spiral. Without that miracle, we were probably on track for ruthless Duterte-style governments, if not something worse like fascism.

Anyway, I predict that the EU will stop short of actually passing this into law. They're not stupid, and they just want "good boy points" for trying (not from the voters, of course, but people with real political power).

show 7 replies
jlengrandlast Monday at 7:47 AM

*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy.

This alone tells me which way I should weigh in on this law. They know what they're doing.

show 2 replies
tomgaglast Sunday at 11:14 PM

I'm Italian. On my side, I did what I could do: I emailed Italian politicians explaining why they should reject the proposal. A drop in the ocean, and far from impactful, but if it can change the odds even by an epsilon, why not?

https://gagliardoni.net/#20250805_chatcontrol

Big politics is not my thing, so for me the big effort was: 1) understanding who, among the zillions of politicians we have, could have a direct role in the decisional process and how; 2) searching and collecting the email addresses; and 3) funnily enough, picking the right honorifics (for example, I was not aware that "Onorevole" is reserved only to certain figures in Italian politics).

I shared the resulting effort on my website, in the hope of making life easier for fellow Italians who want to do the same.

show 1 reply
Centigonallast Sunday at 7:17 PM

In the US, we have government programs like PRISM and unchecked oligopolies that surveil us and use that information to identify dissent, sell us ads, and alter our behavior. In the EU, there are these initiatives to surveil us in the name of safety.

Is there any regime out there who's not trying to mass-surveil their citizens for one reason or another?

show 11 replies
101008last Sunday at 7:31 PM

I was very pissed at this, and when I read this part I couldn't continue, it boiled my blood.

> *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.

show 9 replies
miroljublast Monday at 1:03 PM

As much as we are fighting Chat Control, we also need a plan B. What do we do if EU regime really enact it? Which messengers could we use then? What were the practical alternatives?

Self hosted, decentralized, encrypted, standard based, ... , the only thing that comes to mind is something like delta.chat for texts, which builds upon a standard mail protocol.

Can we do something better than that?

show 1 reply
rossantlast Sunday at 8:26 PM

Sometimes, very bad things are done in the name of "child protection". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402

isoprophlexlast Sunday at 6:50 PM

God fucking damn it not again

This is, what, the fifth time in ten years they try to pass shit like this?

show 6 replies
kratom_sandwichlast Sunday at 7:27 PM

Who are the organizations fighting chat control which one could support with a donation?

show 2 replies
mustaphahlast Sunday at 7:56 PM

The EU: proudly defending human rights… unless you're trying to send a private message.

dachrislast Sunday at 7:51 PM

Really ironic that Britain left the EU, but is even further ahead down this road. British humour I guess.

show 2 replies
random9749832last Monday at 8:36 AM

When they locked everything down and forced you to wear masks they already told you who they are. They don't care about your freedom or you as an individual and your rights.

show 2 replies
x775last Sunday at 9:34 PM

Hello! I made this website. Thank you for sharing.

I appreciate all the feedback, and have implemented a few changes. A few points worth accentuating to avoid any misunderstandings. It is correct that the current proposal indeed is at the Council level, introduced as a high-priority item by the Danish Presidency. It is not yet with the Parliament. This is important as both need to be in agreement for any legislation to be adopted into European law. The first two sections of the website thus summarises the level of support at Council level. The source of this data strictly follows leaked documents from a July 11th 2025 meeting of the Council's Law Enforcement Working Party (LEWP) [0], originally reported by [1] and subsequently summarised by [2]. The next meeting for LEWP is scheduled for September 12th [3], shortly after most MEPs return from vacation.

As noted in another comment, the Council level requires at least 15/27 member states to support it. Should this happen, it would then reach the Parliament, pending approval. However, as support at the Council level seems greater than in previous renditions (supported further by Denmark's insistence and confidence on an expedited vote scheduled for October 14 [4]), it seems prudent to target beyond merely the Council-level. This is the intended goal of the third section of the website.

I see a few comments here suggesting that it would be better to label MEPs yet to respond as "Unknown". I initially decided to have MEPs inherit the position of their government, in part because I (a) wanted to encourage MEPs making a statement and clarifying their stance (while some have in the past, circumstances have changed with this version of the legislation); and (b) wanted to encourage a firm opposition at the Parliament level, ideally before the Council vote. However, I recognise how this can be perceived as being misleading. As such, I have updated the appearance such that pending a response, the label reads "Unknown" while the border indicates the presumed stance of the MEP to be that of their government.

I appreciate the interest and feedback: thank you. Ultimately, the goal with this website really is to raise awareness that the proposed legislation, once again, has been resurrected and is making progress. The attention this thread has garnered is greatly appreciated. As all MEPs have been contacted to confirm their stance, I expect responses to arrive in the coming days and weeks, allowing the overview to soon accurately reflect the personal opinions of each MEP.

In the meantime, I would still encourage you to contact your MEPs such that they are aware of your concerns.

[0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bo...

[1] https://netzpolitik.org/2025/internes-protokoll-eu-juristen-...

[2] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

[3] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/mpo/2025/9/law-e...

[4] https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXVIII/EU/26599/imfname...

show 3 replies
renegat0x0last Monday at 8:34 AM

How do you create an environment in which immoral actions become permissible? You legalize them.

thesdevlast Sunday at 8:00 PM

The individual MEPs' positions are wrong, it's not 1:1 with the national government's position as the website suggests.

nomilklast Sunday at 8:05 PM

Laws generally recognise the sanctity of privacy - for example, so much as looking at someone for too long can be deemed sexual assault in some jurisdictions - yet law makers wish to legislate they be able to view everyone's nudes (and much more)! Weird contradiction.

aprilfoolast Monday at 1:19 PM

In short: everything and everyone is suspect and need to approved by technocratic superior authorities and zealot private organizations. Yesterday China, USA, Russia, UK, India etc and today the EU aligning with North Korean style of control on people.

This is a mind boggling recipe for disaster, a worldwide dystopian nightmare coming true with an unprecedented but quite predictable series of consequences. Next step: compulsory installation of CCTV inside every home?

alphazardlast Sunday at 8:01 PM

So what is the real solution? Meaning the solution that an individual could use themselves, without further coordination, to insulate themselves from this policy. Is it an Android distribution? Jailbreaking? Custom builds?

show 6 replies
mettamagelast Sunday at 9:28 PM

So as a Dutchie that opposes this, is there still something for me to do? The Netherlands opposes this, so... should I sway them to oppose it even more? Not really sure what my role should be.

show 1 reply
setnonelast Sunday at 7:42 PM

Excellent resources section [0] including "Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control" study from European Parliament

[0] https://fightchatcontrol.eu/resources

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAelast Monday at 6:53 AM

I think the people behind this site did a really good job! Can we donate to them?

shark1last Sunday at 7:48 PM

It's impressive how governments never quit trying to implement this harmful idea.

show 1 reply
seydorlast Monday at 7:23 AM

Yup, that's where we should spend our energy

croisillonlast Sunday at 7:48 PM

nitpick but the number of MEPs is not the same in some countries (Slovakia, Spain and a few more) on the summary card and on the representative list

ncr100last Sunday at 9:06 PM

WTFF. Fight !!

Why is this Thought Policing tolerated?

Are we so End Stage Growth Economy that EVERY power broker see now as the time to employer (IC)Enforcement?

Gestapo much, anyone?

show 1 reply
futurecatlast Sunday at 7:29 PM

Thank you for sharing.

pmlnrlast Sunday at 7:27 PM

I don't remember the link to the essay that defined public, private, and secret information. Essentially it said that public is ok for anyone to hear, private is something that shouldn't concern others, whereas secret is something that needs to be kept under wraps.

Under these terms most of what we're protecting with encryption is private - finances, health records, etc. I shouldn't concern others.

Sadly, it does, because the world is full of pieces of shite people who want dynamic pricing on health insurance based on medical information, and all the similar reasons, for example. (Note: I'm from Europe. The while insurance system that's in place in the UK is disgusting, and it's nowhere even remotely close to the pestilence of the US system.)

I'm conflicted with the whole encryption topic. We initially needed CPU power for it, now we have hardware, but that means more complicated hardware, and so on. We now have 47 days long certificates because SeKuRiTy, and a system that must be running, otherwise a mere text website will be de-ranked by Google and give you a fat *ss warning about not being secure. But again, we "need" it, because ISPs were caught adding ads to plain text data.

Unless there are serious repercussions on genuinely crappy people, encryption must stay. So the question is: why is nobody thinking about strong, enforceable laws about wiretapping, altering content, stealing information that people shouldn't have, etc, before trying to backdoor encryption?

show 1 reply
hazek112last Sunday at 10:56 PM

The EU continues to become a hilariously Soviet nanny state.

Beautiful land and country, but they're destroying their cultures with the third world and seem to just not care about the rights of their citizens.

righthandlast Monday at 12:36 AM

This is a list of countries not to visit with tourism money as a foreigner you’re no longer safe.

cobbzillalast Sunday at 7:04 PM

Is Europe sliding into feudalism? The impression is that the government/megacorp complex are the lords, everyone else should accept their place as a serf and do whatever they’re told.

show 3 replies
rendalllast Sunday at 7:48 PM

The landing page really should have an open graph image! It would help with sharing and promotion.

midaszlast Sunday at 7:59 PM

As disappointing as my national government (NL) has been and still is, at least our MEPs oppose this dragon of a proposal.

renewiltordlast Monday at 4:34 AM

Man am I glad I live in America. Despite everything, it's still the land of the free and the home of the brave. The federal system here means that the majority of weird shit happens at the state level.

show 4 replies
colleenthom7last Sunday at 11:23 PM

Test

wizardforhirelast Monday at 3:24 AM

I just had this great idea reading this proposed law and the comments and concerns there of… here me out

Lets just put everybody in the world in prison except for the people with net worths over some unattainable threshold… perhaps a hundred thousand dollars. Then we’ll just make everyone work for and take all of it for ourselves. That way we cam destroy their cultures and the genetic lineages and we can just kill all the people we dont like dont agree with especially if theyre skin color is one we dont agree with. The world will be a better place because the clearly superior people will be on top. We can breed the rest of humans and just eat them. We’ll call them eloi and we’ll be the morlocks.

isaacremuantlast Sunday at 9:15 PM

Sure. Fight it. And also Remember this moment next time you're calling people conspiracy theorists because your party politician or mainstream news says so.

Next time think twice before calling people "freedumb" lovers and otherwise label them as Nazis, deniers, -ism, terrorism apologist, foreign government agents and more which is the typical attack when people fight for civil rights and freedoms.

It's always placing them on a false spectrum and assuming the worst.

Now you get to enjoy your authoritarian utopia. All for the greater good.

trizuzlast Monday at 8:37 AM

[dead]

gddgblast Sunday at 8:27 PM

[dead]

rdm_blackholelast Sunday at 7:19 PM

[flagged]

show 2 replies
chaostheorylast Monday at 4:37 AM

This just hammers the opinion that the GDPR was mainly just an EU economic protectionist policy and not actually about protecting privacy of citizens as promised.

show 1 reply
ukprogrammerlast Sunday at 8:18 PM

HN applauds this vibe-coded “privacy” site yet condemns decentralized messaging.

States control what’s centralized; incentives ensure they keep doing so.

Protesting it is like arguing with a thermostat—it can’t hear you, and it’s built to tighten control.

As technologists, we have a lot more power than we realise.

(Yes, I’m speaking to the blob, but the Venn overlap of anti-crypto and pro-this seems big.)

show 2 replies
latexrlast Sunday at 8:07 PM

We do need to take action, but be mindful the data as presented isn’t yet entirely accurate. Note the text on the website:

> Notice: The positions shown here are based on leaked documents from a July 11th, 2025 meeting of the EU Council's Law Enforcement Working Party (…) The icons next to each name show whether we are displaying their confirmed personal stance or their country's official Council position. This information is updated regularly as new responses come in.

In other words, take care to not harass an MEP whose position is unconfirmed. Be respectful in your opposition of the law but don’t be accusatory if you’re not certain of their stance.

Looking around the website, I can only find four MEPs whose stance was confirmed, all in Denmark. Even for the undecided and opposing countries, every listed stance is based on the stance of the country, not each individual. They should really make this clearer; displaying misinformation could really hurt the cause.

show 1 reply
andrewinardeerlast Sunday at 9:19 PM

Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Signal chat messages to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner?

Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Sessions chat message sent via TOR to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner?

Genuinely curious. Can those that are in power break this encryption?

show 7 replies