Patrick Breyer

I followed the link to that .eu website which then redirected me to https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ I was expecting to find a big CTA button that I could click to sign some message to my representatives. Instead I found a giant wall of text with "ideas on how to take action" followed by a list of points along the lines of "Is your government in favour? Ask for an explanation" OK, ask how? No links, no email addresses... basically it's just a page saying "if you care about this thing do your own homework and find a way to act" Whoever made that page needs to look into the concept of conversion rate. As it is right now it's basically useless

I'm in Sweden, and we behave the same way. We just don't focus on exactly the same things. The attitude towards sex in general is more relaxed, but when it comes to CSA we would love to impose our views on defining and policing it on the rest of the world, see https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

Why is an article from Jan 2025 being recirculated on HN now? It's not Europol's role to push for this, and the European commission has suffered setbacks with ChatControl and other measures already since that time with excellent politicians such as Patrick Breyer doing an outstanding job of informing about and advocating for privacy. - https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-ombudsman-criticises-… [Feb 2025 criticism of the "revolving door" and more context about how this is received] - an excellent resource overall curated by Mr. Breyer about Chat Control, it's advocates, sponsors, the due-process, alternatives and more https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

Most of the EC already proved themselves unworthy of leadership when they pushed to pass Chat Control repeatedly. That's far closer to a dystopia than anything the US has proferred recently. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

The actual proposed regulation [0] is definitely worth having a look at. For example: 5. This Regulation shall not create any obligation that would require a provider of hosting services or a provider of interpersonal communications services to decrypt data or create access to end-to-end encrypted data, or that would prevent the provision of end-to-end encrypted services. [0] page 36 onwards of https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-04-11-co…

> https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SKM_C45820090… page 26 (or page 24 in in-document numbering) ... amazing that Thorn was just an "NGO" .. instead of the company that wants to sell filtering tech. so, can we get the actual expert opinion of these wonderful folk?

The context here is that Czech Pirate Party is part of Czech government coalition[1], so they have more leverage than you could have guessed if you don't follow Czech politics. The council referenced in the post seems to be Council of the European Union[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Petr_Fiala [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union For the overview of the legislative process, see: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/

Doesn't matter what they claim, look at the numbers and what they're actually doing. Apple has a good product with the iphone but they aren't running a charity, it's a hugely profitable business that puts money over everything, even human lives (see how they aid the CCP's totalitarian regime as an example). For users to trust them as a guarantor of privacy and rights is naive at best if not outright idiotic. Since they comply with Beijing why would one assume they won't feed your data to Fort Meade and Brussels - who as a sidenote are planning to outlaw end-to-end encryption for major apps: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/

What about the EU working on mandating a backdoor though? EU law supersedes local law.. I remember another German email provider raising this last week: https://mailbox.org/en/post/chat-control-the-latest-eu-plans-to-outlaw… And https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/ Other posts here mentioned it as exaggerated but it sounds pretty detailed there. It worries me a bit because it would instantly move the EU from one of the best on privacy protections to one of the worst in the western world.

The governing coalition parties (CDU, SPD) members of the European parliament recently voted for similar measures to allow providers to conduct mass surveillance on their users: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/ > But this is not the end of the story: For autumn 2021, European Commission announced that it will propose a follow-up legislation that will make the use of chatcontrol mandatory for all e-mail and messenger providers. This legislation might then also affect securely end-to-end encrypted communications.

A bit off topic, but I'm amazed about the huge media attention this is getting, while a far more serious precedent is being set in the EU, completely banning all private communications between individuals: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?lang=en The short version is: all communication providers may include back doors and analyse messages of users with the same excuse. The follow-up is to make this mandatory. In practice, this will be a ban on any end-to-end encrypted communications.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?lang=en > For autumn 2021, European Commission announced that it will propose a follow-up legislation that will make the use of chatcontrol mandatory for all e-mail and messenger providers. This legislation might then also affect securely end-to-end encrypted communications. So far nobody is reporting on this.

Yep this https://www.patrick-breyer.de website is the worst example of self-referencing I have ever seen :(

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/?p=575559 Here's a link to what seems to be the party's response. From my reading, possibly tainted by translation, he agreed to step down if the European Parliament's Consultative Committee on Harassment at Work found that he had engaged in harassment, they did, and he resigned, but they were unable to remove him from the list due to regulations. While I can't seem to find an account of what exactly transpired, it does appear that the European Parliament's Consultative Committee on Harassment at Work concluded that something did indeed transpire that falls under sexual harassment.

I am the creator of Fight Chat Control. Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed. The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's current indiscriminate "Chat Control 1.0" to lapse [1]. This would have been the ideal outcome. In an unprecedented move, the EPP is attempting to force a repeat vote tomorrow to overturn the March 11 decision, seeking to overturn the otherwise principled decision and instead favouring indiscriminate mass-scanning [1, 2]. In an attempt to avoid this, the Greens earlier today tried to remove the vote from the agenda tomorrow, but this was voted down [3]. As such, tomorrow, the Parliament will once again vote on Chat Control. And unlike March 11, multiple groups are split on the vote, including S&D and Renew. The EPP remains unified in its support for Chat Control. If you are a European citizen, I urge you to contact your MEPs by e-mail and, if you have time, by calling. We really are in the final stretch here and every action counts. I have just updated the website to reflect the votes today, allowing a more targeted approach. Happy to answer any questions. [0] https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578 [1]…

It's quite interesting, that while this topic comes up from time to time (it has been going on a long time after all already), people on here seem to seldom talk about the organizations that lobby for this proposal for years, with big ties to the US and intelligence agencies. So this is by no means just an European phenomenon but there seems to be a much bigger agenda behind it all. Now, at the moment, I don't have a good english language source, but I am sure someone else could provide one? Here is a german language one[0], from netzpolitik.org, who follow chat control for years now an have many articles going in depth about this. I am sure you could use translation software to read it until someone provides a better source. (And if you have not heard of this, you should!) And while someone already linked to patrick breyers website[1] which has a good overview, I do so again so maybe more people will see it. This thing is not new, but it is also not easily ignored and everyone should be informed whats going on here. They will try to pass this again and again since they have done for years now and it's mostly been close calls until now. [0] https://netzpolitik.org/2023/anlasslose-massenueberwachung-recherchen-… [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

> What were the security problems? > They don't even allude to the existence or detection of any specific security problems Arguably the product itself. Which is another reason they might be vague about it. Because to talk about those security problems would taint the entire product and they can't do that if they aren't willing to completely scrap it. People have been talking about how the data in here is similar to what may be already existing but that's far from the truth. Yes, these companies have a lot of data on us, but this is a significant step forwards in the granularity of that data. It's also worth noting that hackers could not get into your computer and assume that your computer not only has a keylogger that they can access to further compromise your system (and other systems/accounts) but that they can also obtain screenshots. These increase user risk significantly and greatly reduce the requisite technical skill needed for those infiltrating machines. Similarly, many have pointed out the potential connections to Chat Control[0] and how such systems can likely be used by many companies to be exploitative of workers. While you may trust your company/partner/significant others/government and so on, it is important to remember that not everyone has such luxuries. It is also important to remember that such things can change. Even in the US there are high risks of potential abuse: such as police obtaining a warrant to get this data to see if someone is trying to…

If I correctly understand the linked materials by Patrick Breyer [1], then the parliament (which is the piece of the E.U. where we are presently asked for our vote), is opposed to this pretty much in its entirety: It says "Parliament has positioned itself almost unanimously against indiscriminate chat control." So, it seems, the way you vote here doesn't much affect that outcome at all. Also, if I correctly understand this table [2], then "Renew" (formerly "ALDE") is also opposed, so you don't need to adopt the leftist political ideology of the Greens as a package, just to get pro-privacy representation in the European Parliament. "Renew" does seem to be a viable "libertarian" alternative there. They also make some pro-privacy representations on their website. I don't follow European politics much, so I may be mistaken here. For example, I haven't looked into their voting record. [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ [2] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#negotiators

I stumbled upon this job posting from the Deutsche Bundesbank [1] (the central bank of Germany) and felt a strong moral obligation to share it. Although the job posting is in German, it does not state that speaking German is a requirement (just English). They are looking for a senior software developer for developing the Digital Euro. You need a Master's degree in IT or a related field, knowledge of Crypto (tokens) and CDBCs and speaking English. Bonus points for experience in backend development (in fast compiled languages, e.g. Go, Scala, Rust) and knowledge of the European payment network. Pay is according to TVöD E13 [2], although with some extra perks. Why am I sharing this? I am just a regular European folk working as a dev in Germany. I am more on the junior end of the spectrum, but being an insider has made me already realize that the logic that we put into the systems that we develop has consequences in terms of social dynamics, politics, etc. In addition, a good design can greatly boost the benefit that we bring to society. An example of a choice having political consequences is using the regular client-server architecture. Although simple and advantageous for many applications, it also has the immediate consequence of being easy to control by a single party. I will not go much into whether this is good or bad, but just point out that such an architecture facilitates the implementation of things like ChatControl [3]. If the developer has some power to decide…

More in-depth information: https://netzpolitik.org/2021/eu-commission-why-chat-control-is-so-dang… Including for example: "According to a legal opinion by Prof. Dr. Ninon Colneric automated scanning could indeed be illegal. Surveillance without a specific reason or reasonable suspicion is prohibited in the EU due to the fact of its violation of fundamental rights. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed this view and, for example, reproved the retention of data on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, attempts to revive the data retention zombie with legal tricks have not died down. The demand can be found regularly in council papers of various EU countries. Thus, this type of mass surveillance is still part of the German Telecommunications Act („Telekommunikationsgesetz“), although being currently suspended." The open letter, linked in the article, is also a good read: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20211020_Lett… Notably: "Individuals, businesses and government rely on end-to-end encryption to safeguard their personal, commercial and state secrets. The safety of individuals (e.g. witnesses, officials) depends on secure encryption protecting their confidential communications. Backdoors can and will be abused by criminals, foreign intelligence services and forces that seek to destabilise our society. The Commission keeps reiterating its commitment to not generally weaken…

> This time, they managed to do it by voting as a second reading just before the summer recess, but next time they will find another way; the European Parliament confirms, once again Just when some people here thought that Chat Control was "defeated" in [0] when I and many others said "Until next time". [1] 4 months later, everyone is surprised that it was green lighted in [2]. Tells me everything I need to know how the EU preaches "privacy" while also tactically passing unpopular laws in support for more surveillance. The EU does not care about you. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47532154 [2] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-parliament-greenlights-chat-contro…

People are doing something (e.g. [0][1][2]). That’s why Chat Control 2.0 hasn’t passed and is unlikely to pass in the foreseeable future. [0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ [1] https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-must-uphold-privacy-secu… [2] https://freiheitsrechte.org/en/themen/freiheit-im-digitalen-zeitalter/…

The vast majority (72%) of European citizens are opposed to Chat control. Regardless, the proposal has been brought up and rejected relentlessly, mostly by action of politicians (commissioners) who are not directly elected to begin with. We have more than enough reasons to be furious. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/poll-72-of-citizens-oppose-eu-plans-t…

Chat Control hasn't passed yet. But the Chat Control lobbyists are still lobbying for it behind the scenes, and are currently pushing for all phone calls in the EU to be covered. Source: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/8612-2026-Doc… https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer

ID verification for app stores already discussed and voted behind closed-doors trilogue meetings, unelected governments like darkness: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-sto… "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."

> Nice to see that democracy can 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-parliament-sto…

To quote the banner on said website: > The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning. The vote itself is being forced by the EPP. This article by an MEP has more info: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-battle-over-chat-control-how-eu-g…

They’re center-right. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/digital-house-arrest-how-the-eu-wants…

Again, the only ones pushing for it is the Council, which is the heads of national governments, nothing else. The Parliament is against it. The Commission is against it. It's only the national governments that are pushing for it. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-twist-commissioner-si…

There's people saying that the 'watered down' version is kinda the same. I lack the legal knowledge to verify but as I understand it, it no longer mandates scanning content, but it does allow it 'voluntarily' and it does mandate that big providers do something against csam, which can only be done... by scanning content. So it's the same proposal just in a more roundabout way. Also it requires everyone to ID themselves in chat apps so that they can be determined to not be a minor which will kill anonymous chatting :( https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-still-poses-…