> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control.
> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: 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. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out
In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries.
One: Passing legislation takes as much work as repealing it; but unpassed legislation has no force of law. Being on the side that's keeping legislation from being passed is the stronger position. You have the status quo on your side. (The only stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from being repealed. Then you have both the status quo and force of law on your side.)
Two: Legislative wants are unlimited. Once a group has invested into political machinery and organisation, they're not going to go home after passing their law. Thus, repeatedly failing to pass a law represents a successful bulwark. It's a resource sink for the defense, yes. But the defense gets to hold onto the status quo. The offense is sinking resources into the same fight, except with nothing to show for it. (Both sides' machines get honed.)
Each generation tends to have a set of issues they continuously battle. The status quo that persists or emerges in their wake forms a bedrock the next generations take for granted. This is the work of a democracy. Constantly working to convince your fellow citizens that your position deserves priority. Because the alternative is the people in power killing those who disagree with them.
"> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: 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. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals."
Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if"
The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies
But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy
Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into
There's a fairly non-invasive way to do age verification: ID cards that connect to a smartphone app that only provide a boolean age verification to the requesting service. Requesting service can be anonymous to the ID app and the requesting service can only receive a bool.
That most implementation will try to collect far more data is the real concern.
"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."
Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Facebook
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are behind this in every way except for 'officially'.
> The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0]
> The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1]
> Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1]
(Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade)
> No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2]
Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:
> Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom.
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway.
I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
Facebook and others have been scanning your private messages for many years already. Then someone discovered that this practice is illegal in Europe. So they passed the temporary chat control 1.0 emergency law to make it legal. The plan was to draft a chat control 2.0 law that would then be the long-term solution. But negotiations took too long and the temporary law will expire on the 4th of April (not the 6th) which means that it will be illegal again for Facebook and others to scan the private messages of European citizens without prior suspicion of any wrongdoing.
Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
The data that isn’t flagged from scanning is prohibited from being stored in the first place. Flagging is required to have maximum accuracy and reliability according to the state of the art. Data that was flagged is stored as long as needed to confirm (by human review) and report it. Data that isn’t confirmed must be deleted without delay.
It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want.
For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.
That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
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.
EPP is appalling and I'm revolted that many large so-called "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are happily part of it and indeed actively pushing extremely anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far right.
Ashamed of France Poland and Hungary. Hungary is a state regime dictatorship so I get it.. but France and Poland, after everything Poland went thru during WW2 then communism with USSR, who the heck are these people voting FOR ?
That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers.
It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.
It's way more complicated. For instance according to this vote Denmark is overwhelmingly against it. However Denmark most recently was the country that pushed heavily towards this, in fact, under Denmark's leadership the whole thing was revived last time around.
If you look at local politics and news they are all lobbying massively for it (or some people do). The reason is usually "for sake of the children". Parents in particular are heavily in favor of chat control.
No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else.
We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic.
Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-We...
And back then already it was the so called center-right party ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control freedom of speech.
Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to certain voices or appeal to prohibition.
Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they apply the law.
this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else
it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation is no longer in effect.
He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz, who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully classified as far-right-extremists.
It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better.
Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation.
Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics.
Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act.
This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
Is the snow melting? Do you hear birds? Must be chat control season.
Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past instances of check control came up against key procedural hurdles.
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany.
This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.
For context:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
They are conservatives. In Germany they also try every time to enact Mass Data Retention ("for catching Criminals"), then the courts decide it's not compatible with the constitution, and after a few years they try again.
So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control.
Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.
EPP proposed it, but then it got amended (ie toned down) so much that they turned on their own proposal. This apparently happens quite a lot. So the way I understand it is they turned it down not because they thought it was bad, but because they didn't think it was bad enough.
> So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control.
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism.
Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
> They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days.
And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes.
> Also compared to whom?
Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
> With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again.
... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament).
But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell.
Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever.
It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
"fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture"
With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done.
In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names.
Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
> So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control.
> You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
I agree there is a strong democratic deficit in the current EU governance structure, but I disagree with a proposal such as
> directly elect some kind of president
We do not need a president with over-powers, and electing directly one does not solve anything for democracy, as the recent history in countries like the US and France shows. The point of directly electing a president is giving that role more power. The current structure in the EU is not so much president-centric either executive or legislative wise, but more like comission-centric, which is what imo has the biggest problem in terms of democracy in the EU.
I get the impression you're coming at it from a US perspective, and it's not that, and doesn't intend to be for now. The president is elected by majority of the MP's who have been elected by the people of their respective countries. Almost like the US electorial system, except it's done internally because people generally only vote for their own best interests and not that of the entirety.
Perfect, no, it can be slow and a lot of red tape, but what system isn't flawed.
The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
Checks and balances means some folks should NOT be directly elected. if everyone is <directly elected>, then you have <directly elected> checked and balanced by <directly elected>. Which is to say, not at all. :-P
We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for?
> directly elect some kind of president.
Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Americas and Africa (plus Russia, these days).
Like, in terms of big countries with a true executive presidency, you’re basically looking at the US, Russia and Brazil. I’m, er, not sure we should be modeling ourselves on those paragons of democracy.
> They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
The parliament has the same accountability and checks and balances as any national parliament, more or less (more than some, as the ECJ is more effective and independent than many national supreme courts).
“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!”
Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).
> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control.
> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: 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. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out
In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries.
One: Passing legislation takes as much work as repealing it; but unpassed legislation has no force of law. Being on the side that's keeping legislation from being passed is the stronger position. You have the status quo on your side. (The only stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from being repealed. Then you have both the status quo and force of law on your side.)
Two: Legislative wants are unlimited. Once a group has invested into political machinery and organisation, they're not going to go home after passing their law. Thus, repeatedly failing to pass a law represents a successful bulwark. It's a resource sink for the defense, yes. But the defense gets to hold onto the status quo. The offense is sinking resources into the same fight, except with nothing to show for it. (Both sides' machines get honed.)
Each generation tends to have a set of issues they continuously battle. The status quo that persists or emerges in their wake forms a bedrock the next generations take for granted. This is the work of a democracy. Constantly working to convince your fellow citizens that your position deserves priority. Because the alternative is the people in power killing those who disagree with them.
Great comment, thank you. I know that I could simply upvote, but this deserved more.
"> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: 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. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals."
Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if"
The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies
But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy
Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into
There's a fairly non-invasive way to do age verification: ID cards that connect to a smartphone app that only provide a boolean age verification to the requesting service. Requesting service can be anonymous to the ID app and the requesting service can only receive a bool.
That most implementation will try to collect far more data is the real concern.
The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram is...interesting.
"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."
Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
See you soon folks!
Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier.
They even used a teddy bear image.
https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-...
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Facebook
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
- Internet Watch Foundation
- Internet Society
- Match Group
- Microsoft
- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)
- UNICEF
- UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are behind this in every way except for 'officially'.
> The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0]
> The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1]
> Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1]
(Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade)
> No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2]
[0] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-00016...
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-...
> - Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)
They really have no shame, do they? https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66772846
Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:
> Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom.
[1] https://people.com/tv/danny-masterson-church-scientology-sue...
Kutcher's VC (Quiet) is deeply invested in the surveillance economy [1].
[1] https://quiet.com/portfolio/?portfolio_type=all
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway.
I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
Yeah, that number is actually really high. I’m wondering how noisy those reports are
I’m confused by
> This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EU
It had already passed and started?
> It had already passed and started?
Facebook and others have been scanning your private messages for many years already. Then someone discovered that this practice is illegal in Europe. So they passed the temporary chat control 1.0 emergency law to make it legal. The plan was to draft a chat control 2.0 law that would then be the long-term solution. But negotiations took too long and the temporary law will expire on the 4th of April (not the 6th) which means that it will be illegal again for Facebook and others to scan the private messages of European citizens without prior suspicion of any wrongdoing.
I take it facebook/meta paid no fines for doing it illegally in the first place?
1 reply →
Of course, remember Apple championed the idea with iMessage scanning which at the time produced A LOT of discussion e.g. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-don...
Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
Something something constitutional (ish*) rights say you can't do this.
Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no.
Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get around to striking it down in 15 years.
Gmail and likely others have been scanning at least emails for child pornography since the 2010s.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj/eng
It was possible on a voluntary basis.
What happens to the already scanned metadata?
The data that isn’t flagged from scanning is prohibited from being stored in the first place. Flagging is required to have maximum accuracy and reliability according to the state of the art. Data that was flagged is stored as long as needed to confirm (by human review) and report it. Data that isn’t confirmed must be deleted without delay.
There was an interim legislation that will expire in april.
It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
> They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.)
Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
1 reply →
It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want.
For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
3 replies →
I think the more fitting imagery would be https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_Fr...
The alternative is a dictatorship.
The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.
Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.
That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want.
Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.
5 replies →
Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until they are able to read your child's messages."
It's never going to stop. They'll keep trying until they get it because they're sick people.
I would say "end of chat control, for now"
Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.
That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
7 replies →
For today or for this month.
The value of persistence!
1 reply →
The fact that they could pull a stunt like this shows that the EU is no democracy. Shame on the politicians who tried to rob people of their rights.
How have you came to such conclusions?
If anything it proves the opposite.
Look at how laws are passed in russia for example for comparison and let me know what similarities you see.
I feel like someone ought to dramatise this seemingly endless struggle in a seemingly endless series of movies.
-The Spying Menace
-Attack of the conservatives
-Revenge of the marketing conglomerate
-A new hope
-Chat Control strikes back
-Return of the Pirate Party
Etc,etc.
Thex will try again. And again. It's for the children, don't you know?
The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation that permanently strengthens privacy rights.
Nice to see that democracy can work
> 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-parl...
Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
3 replies →
But the vote failed only because the EPP voted against it? Or did they mix up the buttons or something? https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
1 reply →
EPP is appalling and I'm revolted that many large so-called "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are happily part of it and indeed actively pushing extremely anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far right.
(Edit: word choice)
2 replies →
See you next month!
[dead]
Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.
The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
Less tight.
I don't quite get it, so the conservatives wanted/want to repeat the vote but also the EPP voted against it and the Socialists supported it?
7 replies →
Ashamed of France Poland and Hungary. Hungary is a state regime dictatorship so I get it.. but France and Poland, after everything Poland went thru during WW2 then communism with USSR, who the heck are these people voting FOR ?
No, that was an ammendment
Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers.
It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.
It's way more complicated. For instance according to this vote Denmark is overwhelmingly against it. However Denmark most recently was the country that pushed heavily towards this, in fact, under Denmark's leadership the whole thing was revived last time around.
If you look at local politics and news they are all lobbying massively for it (or some people do). The reason is usually "for sake of the children". Parents in particular are heavily in favor of chat control.
1 reply →
Hungary can be explained by Victor Organ's desire to spy on the opposition by any means necessary.
France has had really strange tendencies lately, e.g. when they arrested Telegram founder.
1 reply →
Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.
German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
RE Chat Control 2 (ie _not_ this, the proposed permanent version):
> In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public opposition, the German government stated that it would vote against the proposal
German MEPs also voted against this one.
(Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the same thing here.)
> The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly
The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's very interesting.
To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.
Who is going to push a counteroffensive, banning specific types of data from being collected?
No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else.
We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic.
Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-We...
And back then already it was the so called center-right party ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control freedom of speech.
Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to certain voices or appeal to prohibition.
Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they apply the law.
Freedom rights are fundamental.
this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else
it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation is no longer in effect.
You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.
He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz, who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully classified as far-right-extremists.
So to him they are probably left-wing.
It doesn’t matter they can just keep trying and paying people off until it gets through.
Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.
It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better.
Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.
One would think that the same thing getting denied over and over would make future votes about it easier to decide.
Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk
They’ll keep trying.
That’s why we need to keep voting for the MEPs who oppose it.
Until we stop them.
In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation.
Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics.
Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act.
This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
3 replies →
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
Same for software patents in the EU, it came back through the Unified Patent Court.
Told you so.
Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
Sweep it under ProtectEU.
> The European Commission wants a backdoor for end-to-end encryptions for law enforcement
https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/the-european-commissi...
Call it `chatctl` and give it a CLI.
It's not named "Chat Control". It's just what it's commonly known by. It's basically the same as "Obamacare".
9 replies →
"Save the children", or "if you oppose this you're ugly".
we can learn from our American friends and call it something like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh? I hope not
3 replies →
Any event E with P(E) > 0 will eventually happen.
See you next year!
Is the snow melting? Do you hear birds? Must be chat control season.
Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past instances of check control came up against key procedural hurdles.
See you again next week!
That margin is really small
Good.
Now let's start preparing for the next one.
Until next time.
Related discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646
A big W, for now.
Until we meet again.
Chat Control 3.0 will go through
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany.
This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.
For context:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't let the down votes make you feel alone.
[dead]
Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market?
Any time a scumbag politician tries this again:
"Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?"
It would stop fast.
Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.
Wouldn't this have the opposite effect? Seems to play right into their hands that they need mass surveillance for "" safety"" reasons
How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.
... again?
They are conservatives. In Germany they also try every time to enact Mass Data Retention ("for catching Criminals"), then the courts decide it's not compatible with the constitution, and after a few years they try again.
I highly doubt they have given up here too
[dead]
[dead]
So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control.
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.
EPP proposed it, but then it got amended (ie toned down) so much that they turned on their own proposal. This apparently happens quite a lot. So the way I understand it is they turned it down not because they thought it was bad, but because they didn't think it was bad enough.
> So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control.
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism.
Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis.
While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
Greens based as always
[flagged]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off topic.
[flagged]
"What did the Romans ever do for US?" :P
[flagged]
They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also compared to whom?
> They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days.
And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes.
> Also compared to whom?
Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
1 reply →
> With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again.
... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament).
But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell.
Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever.
It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
Obviously you can revoke Laws.
And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
"fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture"
With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done.
In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names.
Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
> So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take.
There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control.
> You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
3 replies →
What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
[flagged]
The only people named Miroljub I've met were serbian, perhaps this person is too.
1 reply →
The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
I agree there is a strong democratic deficit in the current EU governance structure, but I disagree with a proposal such as
> directly elect some kind of president
We do not need a president with over-powers, and electing directly one does not solve anything for democracy, as the recent history in countries like the US and France shows. The point of directly electing a president is giving that role more power. The current structure in the EU is not so much president-centric either executive or legislative wise, but more like comission-centric, which is what imo has the biggest problem in terms of democracy in the EU.
> People need to directly elect the MP
They do.
> directly elect some kind of president
I get the impression you're coming at it from a US perspective, and it's not that, and doesn't intend to be for now. The president is elected by majority of the MP's who have been elected by the people of their respective countries. Almost like the US electorial system, except it's done internally because people generally only vote for their own best interests and not that of the entirety.
Perfect, no, it can be slow and a lot of red tape, but what system isn't flawed.
People directly elects MEPs. And the Parliament literally right now just put a check on the Council.
Many EU nations are not presidential, and personally I prefer parliamentary republics than presidential ones.
The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
Checks and balances means some folks should NOT be directly elected. if everyone is <directly elected>, then you have <directly elected> checked and balanced by <directly elected>. Which is to say, not at all. :-P
6 replies →
> People need to directly elect the MPs
...
We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections every four years were for?
> directly elect some kind of president.
Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything, and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive. True executive presidential systems are only really a thing in the Americas and Africa (plus Russia, these days).
Like, in terms of big countries with a true executive presidency, you’re basically looking at the US, Russia and Brazil. I’m, er, not sure we should be modeling ourselves on those paragons of democracy.
> They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
The parliament has the same accountability and checks and balances as any national parliament, more or less (more than some, as the ECJ is more effective and independent than many national supreme courts).
5 replies →
> The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances
You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
17 replies →
“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!”
Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
> Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place
You described 95% of EU's work.
> Also - wasn’t this program voluntary?
This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).