EU Chat Control and the end of privacy

The European Union is once again moving forward with the so-called “Chat Control” proposal, a legislative initiative that would require scanning of all private digital communications, including encrypted messages and photos. Framed as a measure to combat serious crimes, it risks setting a precedent that could erode fundamental privacy rights for over 400 million EU citizens. This is not just a technical debate over encryption; it is a societal crossroads where the balance between security and freedom is in question.

From security to surveillance

When governments talk about “protecting the public,” it’s often difficult to oppose without sounding careless or naïve. The Chat Control proposal is presented as a child protection measure, targeting the circulation of abusive material and illegal content across messaging platforms. On paper, it seems like a noble cause, who wouldn’t want to prevent such crimes?

The problem lies in the technical and legal mechanisms proposed. The system would require mandatory scanning of all private communications, including end-to-end encrypted ones, to detect prohibited material. This effectively means that no conversation is truly private anymore, every message, photo, or video sent could be automatically analyzed by algorithms before it even reaches the recipient.

Supporters argue that such scanning is already used in certain contexts, such as detecting spam or malware. But those systems operate within specific, transparent limits and are often optional. Chat Control, however, would normalize constant, indiscriminate monitoring of all digital interactions, shifting the EU closer to a mass surveillance model historically associated with authoritarian regimes rather than democratic societies.

This is where the line blurs between security and surveillance. By implementing infrastructure capable of scanning all messages, the EU opens the door for future expansions of its scope, potentially including political speech, dissent, or any form of communication deemed “undesirable.” And unlike temporary emergency measures, this is being proposed as a permanent feature of the digital landscape.

The transition from legitimate law enforcement needs to blanket citizen monitoring is subtle but significant. While it starts with the stated goal of protecting the vulnerable, it ultimately builds a system where every user is treated as a potential suspect.

The technical cost of breaking encryption

One of the cornerstones of digital privacy today is end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This technology ensures that only the sender and the intended recipient can read the content of a message, even the platform hosting the service cannot decrypt it. Apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and even Apple’s iMessage rely on this principle to guarantee confidentiality and security.

The Chat Control proposal fundamentally undermines this model. To scan encrypted messages, there are only two options:

1. Break encryption entirely, allowing messages to be intercepted in transit.

2. Implement client-side scanning (CSS), where messages are analyzed on the sender’s device before encryption takes place.

Both approaches carry serious risks. Breaking encryption removes one of the primary safeguards against cybercrime, making personal and corporate communications vulnerable to hackers, state surveillance, and malicious actors. It would be a step backwards, undoing decades of progress in cybersecurity.

Client-side scanning, often pitched as a “compromise,” is not without its dangers. Once the capability to scan and flag content exists on a device, the scope can be expanded. Initially, it might look for abusive images, but technically, it could just as easily be programmed to detect political speech, religious beliefs, or other categories of content. In essence, it places a permanent monitoring agent in every user’s pocket.

Security experts have warned for years that encryption backdoors, no matter how well-intentioned, are impossible to restrict to “good” uses only. If a door exists, it can be forced open by anyone with enough skill and resources. By mandating such systems, the EU would not only compromise user privacy but also weaken the security of its entire digital ecosystem against global cyber threats.

In short, the technical cost of Chat Control is not just a trade-off, it’s a permanent compromise of the very technologies that keep our digital lives secure.

The political precedent

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Chat Control isn’t just the technology, it’s the precedent it sets. By mandating the ability to scan all private communications, the European Union would be legitimizing mass surveillance as an acceptable governance tool in a democratic society.

History shows that surveillance powers rarely remain static. Measures introduced under the guise of security often expand in scope, especially when the infrastructure for monitoring is already in place. Anti-terrorism laws in the early 2000s, for example, were later applied to situations far beyond their original intent. Once governments acquire new tools for oversight, rolling them back becomes almost impossible.

Furthermore, granting this kind of power to one administration assumes that all future administrations will act with the same restraint and good faith, a dangerous gamble in a world where political landscapes can shift dramatically. Even if current EU leadership uses Chat Control only for its stated purpose, future leaders could easily repurpose it for censorship, political targeting, or broader surveillance.

There’s also the international ripple effect to consider. If the EU implements such measures, it sends a signal to other governments, including those with poor human rights records, that mass monitoring of private messages can be justified and normalized. What begins in Europe could be replicated worldwide, each iteration less restrained than the last.

This is why the fight against Chat Control is about more than just digital privacy, it’s about preserving the boundaries of governmental power. Once the public accepts the idea that all conversations can be screened, the very concept of private communication could become obsolete.

The societal impact

Beyond the technical flaws and political dangers, Chat Control risks reshaping the relationship between citizens and technology in ways that are deeply corrosive to trust. If people know their private communications are being scanned, no matter the stated reason, the result is a chilling effect on speech. Users may avoid discussing certain topics, expressing dissent, or even seeking help for sensitive personal issues out of fear their words could be misinterpreted.

This phenomenon is not theoretical. In societies with high levels of surveillance, studies have shown that individuals tend to self-censor, curating their behavior and speech to avoid drawing attention. The danger is that this kind of self-imposed silence can erode open discourse, one of the foundations of a healthy democracy.

For younger generations, the normalization of constant monitoring could be even more damaging. If they grow up with the idea that privacy is an exception rather than a right, they may never demand better protections or challenge intrusive policies in the future. Surveillance becomes baked into the cultural norm, making it harder to reverse.

There is also a real risk of false positives, legitimate conversations or shared images being flagged by automated systems. These errors can have severe consequences, from unjust accusations to legal troubles, even when no wrongdoing has occurred. And given the complexity of human communication, no AI or scanning algorithm can truly understand context.

Ultimately, the societal cost of Chat Control is measured not only in lost privacy but in the erosion of trust, trust in technology, trust in institutions, and trust between individuals. Once broken, that trust is almost impossible to rebuild.

How to fight back

Opposing Chat Control requires awareness, public pressure, and coordinated action. These measures thrive when citizens are either unaware of them or convinced they are harmless. The first step is ensuring that people understand exactly what’s at stake, the erosion of private communication rights for every EU resident.

One of the most direct ways to take action is to support initiatives like fightchatcontrol.eu. This website provides detailed information on the proposal, tools for contacting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and resources for spreading awareness. Writing to your MEP, signing petitions, and participating in coordinated campaigns can have a tangible impact.

Public opposition has worked before. The EU has, in the past, backed down from controversial legislation when faced with overwhelming resistance, the 2012 ACTA agreement being a notable example. Lawmakers are far less likely to push a measure if they believe it could cost them politically.

It’s also essential to engage in public discourse, both online and offline. Sharing credible articles, explaining the issue to friends and colleagues, and using social media to amplify awareness can multiply the reach of the opposition. When citizens are informed, political narratives become harder to control.

Finally, supporting organizations that advocate for digital rights, such as the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Privacy International, and European Digital Rights (EDRi), helps strengthen the broader movement against intrusive legislation. The fight against Chat Control is not just about one law; it’s about setting a precedent that protects privacy and freedom for the long term.

A choice we must make

The debate over Chat Control is not simply about one piece of legislation, it’s about the future of digital privacy in Europe. If passed, it could become a blueprint for similar surveillance frameworks worldwide, legitimizing the idea that constant monitoring is both acceptable and necessary. That is a dangerous precedent to set.

Supporters frame it as a tool to protect the vulnerable, but the trade-off is extreme: giving up the right to private communication for the illusion of safety. Once such infrastructure is in place, there is no guarantee it will remain limited to its original scope. History shows that powers granted in times of fear are rarely surrendered.

This is why it’s critical for citizens to stay informed, engaged, and vocal. Privacy is not a passive right; it must be actively defended. The cost of inaction is a slow, almost imperceptible erosion of freedoms until they are gone entirely.

The battle over Chat Control is also a reminder that technology is never neutral. Its design, deployment, and regulation are shaped by political and economic forces. When those forces align in favor of control rather than liberty, the public must push back, decisively.

Ultimately, the question is whether we want a future where private conversations remain private, or one where every message we send is scanned, analyzed, and stored. That choice is still ours, for now.