The Hacker News discussion reveals several key themes surrounding the "Chat Control" proposal, reflecting concerns about privacy, government surveillance, the effectiveness of such measures, and the political processes involved.
Widespread Concerns About Privacy and Mass Surveillance
A dominant theme is the deep-seated fear that "Chat Control" represents a significant erosion of privacy and a move towards mass surveillance. Users express strong opposition to any form of on-device scanning, viewing it as a direct threat to confidential communications.
- The core concern is articulated by lukan: "Private communication needs to stay private." He interprets this as "not having a dumb police bot installed on my devices checking all my communication."
- silverliver highlights the inherent danger of on-device scanning: "There is no on-device scanning without compromising privacy. Scanning that can detect child abuse can also detect human rights activists, investigative journalists, and so on."
- ACCount37 emphasizes the magnitude of the privacy compromise: "Some say 'Apple got too much shit for on device scanning'. I think they didn't get nearly enough. If you as much as give the 'think of the children' crowd an inch, they'll take a mile. And giving them on device scanning was way more than 'an inch'."
- immibis dismisses Apple's privacy stance, stating, "Apple has never supported your privacy though, not really. Spyware company issues spyware, news at 11. They're better than Google, but they're not good."
- riedel expresses worry about potential compromises that could still lead to privacy invasion: "I still can imagine that they come up with some scheme as a compromise, that particularly targets particularly encrypted group chats along with all kind of server side automatic scanning, that as you mention could be abused at least by intelligence to track non CSAM content."
- wtbdbrrr frames this as a move towards a less free society: "Basically, it follows the russian playbook (essentially the same 'language' - safety concerns), but instead of the FSB, who is the beneficiary actor in this case?"
The "Think of the Children" Fallacy and its Use in Policy
Several users identify the "think of the children" argument as a primary, and perhaps disingenuous, justification for the proposal, and critique its effectiveness as a policy-making tool.
- ahartmetz labels a statement from a commissioner as a "Literal 'Won't anybody think of the children' moment."
- 42lux offers a perspective on why this argument is pervasive: "Most critics completely dismiss the 'think of the children' argument and simply respond with 'not like this' or with a meme statement like you. It becomes incredibly easy as fallback position because there's no substantial counterargument or original idea for the problem from the opposing side."
- HexPhantom succinctly captures this sentiment: "Honestly, this whole ChatControl proposal reeks of the 'think of the children' excuse being used to push through mass surveillance."
- nabla9 points out the persistence of this tactic: "'Think of the children' will never die."
Public Pressure and Media Engagement as Countermeasures
A significant part of the discussion celebrates the success of public pressure and increased media reporting in pushing back against the proposal, highlighting the power of grassroots activism and accessible information.
- riedel notes concern about the lack of clear opposition to on-device scanning: "They oppose breaking encryption, however, I see no true opposition to on device scanning, which is a bit worrying."
- lukan details the impact of public awareness: "The latest round was already much better covered by the media, including the publicly paid TV and radio. It took them three years, but they noticed. It was also more discussed on the Internet. Slovakia flipped its position precisely due to grassroots pressure."
- inglor_cz shares a similar experience of early advocacy: "During the first iterations of Chat Control, I was pretty much the first source (a poor blogger with about ten thousand irregular readers!!) that wrote about it in Czech. It was surreal to break news on something THAT important (and blatantly unconstitutional in Czechia), while all the bigger media just slept ... and slept ... and slept ..."
- inglor_cz also attributes the eventual increased coverage to a shift in public understanding: "When informed about those plans, most people actually react with some disgust. But the European Commission was really trying to be low-key around this, and the media usually jump on loud scandals first. Too few journalists are willing to poke around in the huge undercurrent of not-very-public issues and fish for some deadly denizens there. More publicity definitely helped the freedom's cause here."
- sunaookami criticizes the media's initial distance from the issue: "German public broadcaster published a commentary last year after Chat Control was blocked saying that 'child safety needs to wait' and lamenting that it didn't get through. Absolutely horrifying how much distance the media has from the people."
- timpera expresses hope that activism is working: "It's not the end of the fight, but it's great to see that the efforts are working! I sent a handwritten letter to my MPs a few weeks ago about this issue but no answer so far..."
Concerns About the EU's Legislative Process and Potential for Future Attempts
Users express a degree of cynicism about the EU's legislative process, anticipating that the proposal, or similar measures, will resurface, and criticizing the perceived lack of transparency and democratic accountability.
- ManBeardPc believes the current success is only a delay: "Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise: https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356. They are only unhappy with certain points like breaking encryption. They still want to destroy privacy and cut back our rights in the name of 'safety', just a little less."
- teekert echoes this sentiment of inevitability: "Next time, when the proposal is worse, when less people care, and the methods to stop it no longer exist."
- portaouflop encourages a more resilient approach: "The struggle never stops, that is part of the human condition - you should embrace this endless cycle with confidence instead of cynical defeatism."
- mrktf predicts further efforts: "Yes, sad part it will be implemented and I betting even in worse form than it is proposed... And worst part of it 'safety' it for current governing party to destroy any opposition. My wild guess it will voted for with overwhelming majority using 'times changed' argument."
- uyzstvqs proposes a structural reform to make the EU more democratic: "The bigger issue is that we need to make the EU actually democratic. Start by removing every branch but the European Parliament. That's the only solution."
- immibis counters that politicians often disregard public opinion: "Politicians don't care about you and me, and protesting is merely a useful distraction."
- NoboruWataya argues against making legislation easier to pass: "Enacting broad, sweeping legislation is cumbersome and difficult which is a feature, not a bug. If we had a more streamlined system we'd probably already have chat control by now."
- mytailorisrich criticizes the EU's power creep: "The only solution is to stop the EU level power grab by formally restricting what the EU can do and to make sure member states remain where most of the power lies. The US has that. The EU does not so as time passes the EU's power keeps creeping up."
- immibis points out the limitations of EU authority over member states: "The EU is not sovereign. Member countries can just outright ignore EU law (see: Hungary or the former UK) and the only recourses are civil things like issuing declarations, withholding payments, crossing them off treaties, or kicking them out of the EU. There are no EU police that can be involuntarily forced on a country the same way the USA can send armed federal police or military into its states."
- ktosobcy defends the EU's structure as a balance: "The concept of indirectly elected representatives is not new - in most democracies you vote for MPs and they then form the government and choose prime minister. Given that the EU is 'one level up' it complicates stuff. We could argue that we could make it completely democratic and only have the parliament but this would completely sidetrack any influence of the state. So if we want to maintain the balance we have this convoluted system."
- rbehrends agrees that simplifying the process could be detrimental: "What you are proposing would amount replacing the current bicameral legislature (with the European Parliament as the lower house and the Council of the EU as the upper house) with a unicameral legislature. That would actually make it easier for bad laws to be passed, especially as the supermajority required in the Council is currently the biggest obstacle for this kind of legislation."
The Role of Lobbying and Geopolitical Influence
The discussion touches upon the influence of external actors and lobbying groups in shaping EU policy, particularly noting the involvement of US-based organizations.
- jeltz suggests explanations for certain countries' stances: "One possible reason seems to be lobbyism and shady connections to surveillance tech companies and various shady non-profits https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/"
- hnhg points to US lobbying efforts: "And neuter the influence of deep-pocketed lobbying entities - US entities in particular seem to spend a lot of money on influencing EU politics: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/"
- amelius humorously notes the financial side of lobbying: "Wow, Apple paid 7M for 9 people to have 144 meetings with the EC. I'm in the wrong line of business."
- tucnak explicitly names US organizations as major proponents: "The unfortunate reality is that a single largest lobbyist for Chat Control in the EU is, ironically, the US, namely the US intel community-affiliated orgs like Thorn, WeProtect, etc. The EU bureaucrats are gullible, and it's no excuse of course, however there's a reason why every time there's a new driver, a new country behind Chat Control proposals. This has been part of coordinated U.S. signals collection strategy."
- tucnak advises against anti-American sentiment in protests: "I reckon that would only serve to play into their hands. There is just enough plausible deniability for conspiracy-theory optics."
Political Pragmatism and Opposition Beyond Privacy
While privacy is a central concern, some users discuss the political landscape and motivations that drive such proposals, including national security and the complexities of differing political ideologies.
- 42lux explains the Baltic states' position: "They argue for national security instead of privacy for the individual with Russia at their borders."
- mrtksn questions Denmark's persistence: "IIRC It's Denmark that keeps pushing for this. Is there anyone here to give more background on that?"
- BSDobelix links to an article: "Return of chat control: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/08/08/return-of-chat-control-something-is-rotten-in-the-state-of-denmark"
- liendolucas expresses frustration with Italy's stance: "Apparently Italy will support it. This is absolutely infuriating and it will fail miserably. Encryption can't he stopped no matter what law gets out there and any politician voting in favor shows how ignorants they are."
- deafpolygon shows cautious optimism about the Netherlands' opposition: "Happy to see the NL here in opposition to ChatControl! The political climate here is slowly pushing to the right, which I'm not happy about. But there seems to be voices getting louder from the left. So that leaves me with hope!"
- pembrook offers a jaded view of government motivation: "Government is a job that self-selects for people who either want safety or power more than anything else, given it pays far less than the private sector. Both the safety people and the power people want to reduce public freedom and the ability to do things. The only way we keep these people from this is the threat of voting them out of their jobs. But they are more motivated than we are, so they usually win over time."
- zarzavat questions the need for such measures in non-totalitarian states: "Why would you really need something like that in a non-totalitarian state?"
The Enduring Challenge of Balancing Security and Privacy
The discussion repeatedly circles back to the fundamental challenge of balancing security concerns with the right to privacy, acknowledging that exceptions to privacy are often supported but that the current proposals go too far.
- **victorbjork### The Enduring Challenge of Balancing Security and Privacy
The discussion repeatedly circles back to the fundamental challenge of balancing security concerns with the right to privacy, acknowledging that exceptions to privacy are often supported but that the current proposals go too far.
- victorbjorklund notes the existence of exceptions for legitimate investigations: "There are laws about that already. However they have exceptions (and most people support exceptions. No one expects for example the privacy of ISIS terrorists be respected when they are investigated for terrorism and there are probable cause)."
- juliangmp points to German constitutional protections: "In Germany there is article 10 of the Grundgesetz. While it does allow exceptions (like through a warrant), I wouldn't be surprised that if this law was passed that our constitutional court would deny it based on article 10 (any maybe article 1, that one's important)"
- tcldr advocates for judicial oversight: "With a warrant from a judge people should be compelled to provide access to their encrypted files or be in contempt of court with all that entails. Anything else is overreach."
- contrarian1234 highlights the fuzziness of privacy rights: "Has anyone clearly articulated a right to privacy in a clear succinct way? Unlike other human rights, the right to privacy has always been a bit fuzzy with a ton of exceptions and caveats."
- Geee uses game theory to illustrate the stakes: "It's simple game theory. If one player (government) has access to private information of all players (citizens), then it's not possible to keep the government from winning, i.e. becoming tyrannical. Losing privacy equals losing liberty."
- Raed667 stresses the need for explicit legal protection: "Unless there is a law that says that the fundamental right to privacy is protected then we're bound to repeat this ordeal every couple of years."
- tgv suggests the European Court of Human Rights might intervene: "Sounds like the European Court of Human Rights would annul it, but you can't be sure."
- ink points out a loophole in the ECHR: "It's also in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But that has a big loop whole. Article 8: Right to privacy... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
- silverliver questions the universality of human rights declarations: "Are all UN nations bound to this declaration or at least those joining after 1948?"
- flowerthoughts clarifies that ratification is individual: "No, human rights and children's rights declarations are ratified individually."