[HN Gopher] One-man campaign ravages EU 'Chat Control' bill
___________________________________________________________________
One-man campaign ravages EU 'Chat Control' bill
Related: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
Author : cuu508
Score : 329 points
Date : 2025-10-08 10:26 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu)
| zaik wrote:
| > A website set up by an unknown Dane
|
| > The website, called Fight Chat Control, was set up by Joachim,
| a 30-year-old software engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark.
|
| That's a lot of knowledge about an unknown person.
| willvarfar wrote:
| Further down the article explains:
|
| > Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or
| workplace because his employer does not want to be associated
| with the campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim
| said his employer has no commercial interest in the
| legislation, and he alone paid the costs associated with
| running the website.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if he was still targeted by the
| people and companies lobbying for the law.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| The media loves doing this "let's go doxx people we don't
| like" shit.
|
| When the kiwifarms do it, it's "harassment" and "morally
| reprehensible" and "they deserve to get wiped off the face
| of the internet for this". But when the media does it, it's
| "journalistic duty" and "our readers deserve to know" and
| "consequences are things that happen to other people".
| Funny how that works.
| veeti wrote:
| You can't fire people in Denmark for having the wrong
| opinions.
| m0llusk wrote:
| Work is more than being fired or not.
| netsharc wrote:
| Yeah, a quick search says there's 21000 men aged 25-34 in
| Aalborg. Let's say an equal spread of 2100 men in each age, how
| many would be named Joachim? Probably a few dozens...
| ipaddr wrote:
| Over 2,000. It's not as common as Joe.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think they mean of the ~2100 which are 30.
| Agingcoder wrote:
| The fake anonymity journalists often give to sources
| ('Richard D , from small town X, aged 34, works as a
| carpenter specializing in 16th century house renovation') is
| something I find rather striking.
|
| What's not clear to me though is whether they're deliberately
| tricking their source, or whether they genuinely don't
| understand that their source is not anonymous when they give
| that many details.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| The EU hero of 2025.
| 1gn15 wrote:
| Thanks Joachim! Still frustrating that Politico still implies
| that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who
| wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of
| encryption.
|
| > The campaign has irked some recipients. "In terms of dialog
| within a democracy, this is not a dialog," said Lena Dupont, a
| German member of the European People's Party group and its home
| affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
|
| What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected
| lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up
| and take it?
|
| Or, or, "normal people" sending emails only for the lawmakers to
| go "thanks for the feedback, we're doing it anyway"?
|
| > One EU diplomat said some EU member countries are now more
| hesitant to support Denmark's proposal, at least in part because
| of the campaign: "There is a clear link."
|
| > Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at digital rights group EDRi,
| said "This campaign seems to have raised the topic high up the
| agenda in member states where there was previously little to no
| public debate."
|
| This is amazing, and makes me regain a bit of (much destroyed)
| faith in democracy.
|
| > But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the
| loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material
| off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is
| far more balanced than the Commission's original version and
| would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.
|
| If the option is there, it will be abused.
| raverbashing wrote:
| > But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the
| loudest proponents of tough measures
|
| Good, this is the person that should be blamed loud and clear
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "I
| indisputably believe that surveillance creates an increased
| sense of security ... and given that the prerequisite for
| freedom is security, yes, I believe that more surveillance
| equates to more freedom"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45473136
| Telaneo wrote:
| I'm sure the Stasi would very much agree with him.
|
| The fact that he's actually saying this is incredible, and
| not in a good way.
|
| I'd love to hear him explain the government exemptions in
| the bill with this in mind.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "We must
| break with the totally erroneous perception that it is
| everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted
| messaging services."
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/danish-justice-
| min...
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Perhaps the EU should consider adding access to secure
| encrypted communication to the human intrinsic rights to
| prevent such things in the future. He seems to be
| motivated by increases in gang crime that he will get
| blamed for.
| Telaneo wrote:
| I'd love to see this argument transfered to physical
| mail. Should it be illegal to send physical letters that
| are encrypted without also somehow providing the
| government with an unencrypted copy?
|
| If that somehow seams reasonable on its face to someone,
| then I don't know where to begin a reasonable discussion.
| rusk wrote:
| The cops can intercept physical mail
| mrandish wrote:
| Yes, but that parallel example is not relevant here
| because modern online messaging is profoundly different
| in crucial ways. Governments can (and do) intercept and
| store nearly all electronic messages which permits
| instant searching and deep cross-referencing of both
| content and sender/receiver metadata for every message
| ever sent by anyone, anywhere at any time. None of which
| is true for physical mail. If you don't find that
| terrifying, you don't fully understand what it means.
|
| When they do intercept physical mail messages, if the
| sender has encoded the message, in most democracies, the
| government is not permitted to compel the sender to
| decode the message. And even if you come under suspicion
| today and they start intercepting your physical mail,
| they can't have an LLM search ALL your physical mail for
| the last decade at the press of a key. With electronic
| communications they don't even need suspicion first. The
| LLMs are already actively searching everything hunting
| for anything the government labels sufficiently
| "suspicious."
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes but it too can be encrypted
| sib wrote:
| >> Should it be illegal to send physical letters _that
| are encrypted without also somehow providing the
| government with an unencrypted copy_?
|
| > The cops can intercept physical mail
|
| You didn't answer the question...
| tokai wrote:
| He has no good explanations or arguments. He was beaten
| as a child by his father and now he is reproducing the
| abuse of power he experienced on all of us. I'm not even
| trying to be snarky, it's the only framing that can
| explain his behavior.
| tgv wrote:
| It's not even the fact that that belief is unfounded, but
| that he's actually equating a sense of security with
| security itself that makes that statement a bold yet easily
| overlooked lie. That he calls himself a social-democrat!
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Wouldn't that party lean more towards early
| identification and rehabilitation of potential predators
| with therapy etc.?
| powerhouse007 wrote:
| Sexual orientation cannot be changed as far as science
| knows.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I was thinking about cognitive therapy to decrease the
| likelihood they would harm people as a result of the
| proclivities they cannot change. Some people have a
| natural urge to murder people all the time, if they learn
| to control it there is no reason they cannot contribute
| to society.
| g-b-r wrote:
| This guy is insane
| palmotea wrote:
| > Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "I
| indisputably believe that surveillance creates an increased
| sense of security ... and given that the prerequisite for
| freedom is security, yes, I believe that more surveillance
| equates to more freedom"
|
| I mean, he's kinda right. It just depends on if you feel
| you're a target or not. If you're not the target, you feel
| an increased sense of security from any threat caused by
| the people who are the target.
|
| A really obvious example is a dictator like Kim Jong Un:
| there's a huge amount of surveillance in North Korea, but
| all of it serves him and none of it threatens him.
|
| So, especially someone kind of unthoughtful and ignorant of
| the complexities might feel "an increased sense of
| security" from this surveillance, because they know they're
| not a pedophile so assume surveillance purportedly targeted
| at pedophiles will do them no harm. You might even feel
| "more freedom" to the degree you feel pedophiles are a
| threat to you or your family.
| einarfd wrote:
| The quotes I've been seeing from him, makes him sound like
| a cartoon villain, I'm hoping for his sake he is misquoted.
| silicon5 wrote:
| A metaphor: I once played in a D&D campaign where a player
| tried to create an extremely overpowered but technically legal
| character. His justification was that he would only use the
| extreme powers in moderation, so it would not be unfair or
| unbalanced. But why would he ask for such unprecedented powers
| if he didn't intend to use them?
| varispeed wrote:
| Another one: someone buys a sports car and promises to drive
| within legal speed limits at all times.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Nobody does that.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| I mean, every person who purchases a car does so, at
| least implicitly. The very act of obtaining a driving
| license contains an (often explicit) promise to abide by
| the rules of the road.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Except in Germany!
|
| (Technically correct is the best kind of correct)
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I believe the Autobahn still carries the legal
| requirement to drive at a safe speed at all times. Pedal
| to the floor racing is not often safe speeds for a public
| road.
| criemen wrote:
| Yes, yet [1] happened where someone took precautions to
| drive safely at >400 km/h speed.
|
| [1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-
| laid-on-bug...
| pxc wrote:
| It sounds like an investigation was quite reasonable, and
| then it cleared him before charges were pressed. Seems
| pretty good!
| Integrape wrote:
| A better one: the large number of individuals who drive
| super-duty pickup trucks only for commuting to their office
| jobs.
| Terr_ wrote:
| IMO that's a little different since many of them also
| buying the utility of _appearances_ , which be flaunted at
| entirely legal speeds or even while parked.
|
| In contrast, an expensive speedy car _disguised_ as a cheap
| slow one would be _much_ more suspicious.
| collingreen wrote:
| There are also ways to drive fast legally
| nine_k wrote:
| A sports car could be bought just for the looks.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Based on how often I find myself watching laden work vans
| pass vehicles that can easily "do better" this, or
| something like it, is likely a common reason for purchase
| wiseowise wrote:
| You can buy fancy sports car for looks and status.
| DelightOne wrote:
| The threat already silences the opposition. You don't have to
| use it to silence people.
| biotinker wrote:
| I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft
| of situation where this is in fact reasonable.
|
| There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men,
| hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples
| include the TV show Lucifer.
|
| Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely
| plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which
| you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have
| genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and
| DM that _can_ work. There are both in-game and out-of-game
| ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can
| always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-
| game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D
| &D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and
| play.
|
| (That said, another approach is to have a conversation
| about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for
| everyone to have the fun they'd like to have _without_
| risking something game-breaking.)
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill
| has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to
| trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption._
|
| MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions of
| those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise they
| get shut down for $REASON witch can be any of the following
| labels: hate speech, misinformation, fake news, woke left,
| radical right wing, Putin supporters, etc. Just spin the
| roulette and pick one.
|
| _> What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected
| lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut
| up and take it?_
|
| Yes, that's precisely how it works:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtdbF-nRJqs
| davedx wrote:
| > MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions
| of those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise
| they get shut down for $REASON
|
| What a load of crap! There is still tons of "mainstream
| media" outlets that don't do this. One of the biggest in the
| UK would be The Guardian, there are hundreds like it.
|
| The decision to toe the line, like the WaPo, are purely
| because of _money_ (Jeff 's and his readership's), not
| because anyone is "shutting them down" for X or Y.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> One of the biggest in the UK would be The Guardian_
|
| I used to like the Guardian in 2009-214 but now, I trust
| someone's "it came to me in a dream", before I trust The
| Guardian, given their recent flops and biases.
| collingreen wrote:
| The US is seeing lots of pressure on media because of not
| parroting the ruling party line. The current US president
| openly says any news he doesn't agree with is not only a
| lie but that the media companies are literally the enemies
| of the people. This doesn't even get into the tweet storms
| and the canceled programs in order to fall in line!
|
| Your last point seems to be the parent's point as well --
| if you want to keep your media business alive (to make
| money; that's what businesses are) in the US you have to be
| careful criticizing those currently in power. Unless I
| misunderstood you to and you meant that parroting the party
| line is a way to make more money but not doing it is also
| perfectly effective and not at all a risk.
| Simulacra wrote:
| If I didn't know any better, I would think you are describing
| Congress.
| cess11 wrote:
| "Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill
| has any power to stop CSAM"
|
| Why wouldn't they? It's a NATO aligned, pro-Israel rag under
| Axel Springer, of course they're helping to sell surveillance
| technology that can be abused by militaries and state agencies,
| one of the main israeli exports and generally appreciated
| industry by NATO.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _is far more balanced than the Commission's original version_
|
| It doesn't require analyzing of all text and sound. Everything
| else is still fair game.
| spankibalt wrote:
| > "[...] A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and
| bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take
| it?"
|
| Why, yes... that's _exactly_ what the types of outfits like the
| European People 's Party [1] expect on many things. But year
| after year these incompetent grouches get the majority of
| votes. And that's _before_ one has to deal with the full-blown
| far right, fascists, and the like (e. g. ESN [2], PfE [3], et
| cetera).
|
| 1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People's_Party]
|
| 2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Sovereign_Nations_G
| r...]
|
| 3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots_for_Europe]
| port11 wrote:
| Given the dealings with Pfizer and the blocking of an ethics
| committee, why, yes, the EPP prefers lobbying to remain
| opaque.
| ncruces wrote:
| This is not a left-right issue. You have the danish S&Ds
| pushing it and ALDE opposing it.
| mrandish wrote:
| Agreed. Even in the U.S. personal privacy is not a
| left/right issue. Both major political parties will
| sometimes pay lip service to privacy when campaigning yet
| when in power they both engineer votes that permit further
| erosion of privacy rights and expand exceptions for law
| enforcement and intelligence agencies to vacuum up personal
| data from citizens with little oversight.
| uhgseyjnn wrote:
| The bill is bad, but this is disingenuously stupid:
|
| > Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill
| has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to
| trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
|
| Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught
| not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer
| options that this legislation would eliminate.
|
| We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to
| ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
| limbero wrote:
| Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? I
| guess it's just clickbait, but I haven't previously found
| Politico to be this extreme.
|
| And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in
| one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the
| facts:
|
| > The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the
| bill and send it...
|
| And most of the other headlines on their current front page are
| quite boring and descriptive.
| baobun wrote:
| "spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool
| assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected
| representatives.
|
| I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the
| creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they
| clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face
| threats from having their personals broadcasted.
|
| It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in
| the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic
| picks for the Politico audience.
| fph wrote:
| My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks
| people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks
| me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the
| proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a
| completely different body.
| belorn wrote:
| The commissioners are not elected by the citizens of their
| respective countries. Instead, they are selected via a
| parliamentary vetting process, and approved by the European
| Parliament.
|
| The commission has no direct responsibility towards the
| citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that
| scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the
| commission. The commission job is only to write proposal
| for laws.
|
| This is a bit like complaining that people have objections
| about a politician speech and send emails to the politician
| rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should
| citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech
| writes?
| fph wrote:
| This does not seem a fitting metaphor: you complain only
| after the politician has read that speech. But this whole
| campaign is about a speech that has not been written yet,
| i.e., a proposal that has not been finalized. You are
| writing to a MEP about a certain draft that is still
| being worked on, and that they might have to vote on in
| the future.
|
| What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I
| can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and
| when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to
| them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?
| wickedsickeune wrote:
| Yes you are correct, but technically the parliament passes
| the laws, so they have the final say. It should be the
| commission that gets slapped in the face (or even better
| dissolved as it's quite undemocratic), but what can you
| do...
| gambiting wrote:
| >>or even better dissolved as it's quite undemocratic)
|
| I never understood this argument. The comission's job is
| to write the laws, the parliment's job is to make sure
| they acceptable to all member states and either pass them
| or send them back.
|
| It's the same how say, UK government uses various
| comissions to write legislation which then goes in front
| of the parliment which then either passes it or don't -
| and I don't think we would call the British system
| undemocratic(well, other than the monarchy and the house
| of lords - but the way the parliment works is deeply
| democratic). I don't believe any EU member state directly
| elects their law writers and comissions that propose them
| - the democratic part is always at the top.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I think it's fairly common that individual members of
| parliament do directly draft and submit their own bills,
| certainly it is not uncommon that they have the right to
| propose their own bills.
|
| But by volume most of these bills are shit and so just
| quietly die in a vote nobody noticed, and so most law
| that we actually have was indeed drafted by a special
| commission and put forward by the executive before it was
| approved by parliament.
| skybrian wrote:
| It sounds like it sends unsolicited mass email. For a good
| cause, but still, why isn't that a spam tool?
| baobun wrote:
| You are misinformed on three points.
|
| It doesn't send anything but assists visitors to send on
| their own.
|
| It is not unsolicited communication.
|
| Politico is not an unbiased publication.
| iamnothere wrote:
| I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias
| against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate
| pressure against them or discourage further opposition?
|
| At least it's not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title
| then it's mostly balanced.
| croes wrote:
| >trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual
| abuse material from spreading online.
|
| I wouldn't call that neutral.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| Why?
|
| That's what the bill's intentions are.
|
| If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't
| change the stated intention.
|
| If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that
| doesn't change what the article should state unless there is
| evidence
|
| They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal
| instead of writing "that will stop child..."
|
| It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying
| information from both sides. The article even details that
| there is an opposition to the bill.
| piva00 wrote:
| Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer
| SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s
| [0].
|
| It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe,
| I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a
| newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles,
| and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the
| AfD.
|
| [0] https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/
| WA wrote:
| Oh that's why Elon was quoted in the article as if anything
| Elon has to say on this matter is relevant at all.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article?
| ... And the article itself describes the actual setup
| accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the
| author knows the facts
|
| I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the
| headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the
| last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply
| the opposite stance of the article itself...
| nabla9 wrote:
| Joachim is the one-man in right place. Thanks.
| iamnothere wrote:
| Absolute hero, and a slap in the face to many commenters here who
| seem to believe that individuals can't have a political impact
| through the clever application of technology. Fairly simple
| technology at that. A good comparison is the deflock.me site that
| seems to be successfully raising awareness of widespread
| surveillance.
|
| Note that this technology complemented ongoing campaigns rather
| than standing alone; that's important. It would be difficult to
| have an impact by building a tool in isolation.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Joachim's campaign is blocking more traditional lobbyists and
| campaigners, too, they said. Mieke Schuurman, director at child
| rights group Eurochild, said the group's messages are no longer
| reaching policymakers, who "increasingly respond with automated
| replies."
|
| So, previously they could blow off people like Mieke personally,
| and now they're getting too many messages to be able to do that.
| That seems like a pretty clear win.
| docdeek wrote:
| The site is linked in the article but adding it here:
| https://fightchatcontrol.eu
| croes wrote:
| Where is that spam?
|
| > trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual
| abuse material from spreading online.
|
| Nice try on framing. No, you don't stop the spread of the
| material that way. It will just change distribution channel for
| the price of creating a tool for mass surveillance.
| komali2 wrote:
| I'm fascinated by ultra high impact, nonviolent interventions by
| individuals, such as this.
|
| My favorite example was when a few people made Twitter accounts
| masquerading as large companies, bought a verified stamp, and
| then issued a couple tweets that single handedly wiped billions
| off the companies' stock prices.
|
| If anyone else knows of similar interventions, I would love to
| learn of them. It makes me think about how individuals can force
| multiply their impact, and whether there's methods for personal
| empowerment to be learned from these examples.
| jopsen wrote:
| He isn't alone, lots of people sent the emails from their
| personal account.
|
| You can have outsized impact by participating in democracy.
| selendym wrote:
| > If anyone else knows of similar interventions, I would love
| to learn of them. It makes me think about how individuals can
| force multiply their impact, and whether there's methods for
| personal empowerment to be learned from these examples.
|
| One that comes to mind is Keith Gill [1] of GameStop fame [2].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gill
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameStop_short_squeeze
| notachatbot123 wrote:
| FYI: Politico is owned by Axel Springer SE, a hateful, aggressive
| and undemocratic German media and news company.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They have also dumped their barely disguised spyware called
| Upday onto Samsung customers for years by preinstalling that
| crap
| isoprophlex wrote:
| > a massive headache to those trying to pass a European bill
| aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading
| online.
|
| No, what the actual fuck: it's a bill rolling out a CSAM scanner
| of unproven efficacy, but with severe side effects for privacy!
| See, one sentence, and immediately a reader sees that this is a
| nuanced, contested issue.
|
| What kind of reporting is this, extremely one-sided. Politico,
| many such cases. Sad.
| slackfan wrote:
| How are the EU legislators complaining about this like its a
| novel idea or somehow undemocratic? This sort of email templating
| website has been a fixture of contact your reps movements on the
| state and federal level for years in the states.
|
| I also get a kick out of lobbyists complaining about it.
|
| Sorry, but this is what democracy looks like.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > a European Union proposal to fight child sexual abuse material
| (CSAM) -- a bill seen by privacy activists as breaking encryption
| and leading to mass surveillance
|
| Why not call it: "a proposal to break encryption and enact mass
| surveillance, claimed to be used to fight CSAM"?
|
| How did the author decide which part to present as plain fact,
| and which as mere activist opinion? The choice isn't arbitrary -
| the proposal _definitely will_ break encryption and enact mass
| surveillance - that 's what the text of the proposal directly
| commands governments to do!
|
| I guess such subtleties fade compared to the two bald lies in the
| title alone - it is not "spam" to simplify EU citizens contacting
| their representatives, and since that "spam" was sent by those
| citizens themselves, it is not a "one-man" campaign either, but a
| mass movement.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _Why not call it: "a proposal to break encryption and enact
| mass surveillance, claimed to be used to fight CSAM"?_
|
| That doesn't have the same ring to it to persuade clueless and
| weak politicians to support anything with the word "child" in
| it.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > How did the author decide which part to present as plain
| fact, and which as mere activist opinion?
|
| They have a very obvious bias, and the parts supporting their
| bias are presented as positive.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Oh I'm not objecting to presenting some parts as negative and
| others as positive. I'm objecting to presenting some parts as
| uncontested truth, while others as mere "activists say" (
| _especially_ since what those activists say is simply what is
| written in the law - there 's no room for opinion).
| laylower wrote:
| Joachim - we need more of you.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| the article is more-or-less fine, but the headline is ridiculous
|
| > one-man ... campaign
|
| it's a website that drafts an email for you, and then you send it
| yourself. it's an organizational tool, yes, but broad involvement
| is sorta the point
|
| > spam campaign
|
| gross mischaracterization, citizens sending emails to their govt
| representative for legitimate purposes - making their political
| opinion known to the politician - is not spam under any sane
| definition
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've removed spam from the title above.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It's also _not_ a "one-man campaign".
|
| The whole point of it is that it enables a duckton of people to
| campaign against it in an easy way. And much more noticeable
| than a stupid change.org petition where you're just one of an
| easily-ignored number on a website.
| Mo3 wrote:
| > A website set up by an unknown Dane
|
| Next sentence,
|
| > The website was set up by Joachim, a 30-year-old software
| engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark
|
| ? Is this what journalism has come to? On top of calling this a
| spam campaign?
| rjh29 wrote:
| Presumably 'unknown' here means 'not famous or well-known', as
| in "she is a relative unknown".
| jopsen wrote:
| For any Danes out there, you can sign here:
| https://www.borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-2115...
| jopsen wrote:
| I wrote a personal message.
|
| But huge thanks to Joachim for making it easy!
| intended wrote:
| I love tech and don't want chat controls. It's what I just get.
|
| The current situation _does not work_.
|
| Chat controls, government controls - are coming.
|
| The underbelly of social and chat tech is filled with logic
| gremlins and impossible objects. They're just constant
| metastasizing into monster.
|
| And it's absolutely natural that legal entities get legislated
| into existence to oppose them.
|
| Go sit in a T&S Que. See the absurdity that has to be wrestled
| into workflows. See how individual voices and requests are
| reduced to KPIs.
|
| Knowledge is power and so on - but knowledge must also be earned.
|
| See what reality is for T&S or Ai safety or risk and compliance
| or what have you.
|
| See the rift in reality as ideas, people and tech are mangled
| together.
|
| At the very least you can know the absurdity of the reality we
| live with.
| iamnothere wrote:
| > Chat controls, government controls - are coming.
|
| Not if the people continue to fight off each attempt. Looks
| like we may be winning this round. Each time we win this
| battle, the opposition becomes better organized/funded and
| citizens become more aware of what is going on. Each subsequent
| push will have less chance of success once we pass a key
| threshold; it seems to me that this may be the last big push,
| if we win here then the public won't back future attempts. Then
| your only option to pass this will be removing democracy
| altogether.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| I think you are underestimating how paranoid people are about
| "pedophiles. It's been used by politicians more and more to
| create a climate of fear so they can justify a more
| authoritian set up.
|
| Because I promise you there are people who would give up a
| great of deal to solve child sex abuse crimes.
|
| They just don't understand the actual risks due to
| manipulation
| beej71 wrote:
| What service is there that will allow this quantity of outbound
| email traffic? Asking for a friend.
| dang wrote:
| The site fightchatcontrol.eu was posted here, though not much
| discussed per se - like all of these threads, it's pretty
| generic:
|
| _Fight Chat Control_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44856426 - Aug 2025 (498
| comments)
|
| (As for Chat Control threads in general, there are too many to
| list.)
| bix6 wrote:
| Is it possible to do this in the US or do I have to go through
| each politicians web form?
| oli5679 wrote:
| One interesting anecdote about this bill was that the European
| Commission allegedly funded digital advertisements promoting it,
| targeting specific political demographics, which is something
| that could possibly be prohibited by their own regulations.
|
| https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-files-complaint-against-eu-commissio...
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/transpare...
| xaxaxa123 wrote:
| Politico is so wack, they cant cope with the fact people dont
| want a surveillance state.
| mentalgear wrote:
| Politico is owned by the Fox News of Germany (Springer/Bild).
| Bender wrote:
| Archive of FightChatControl [1] and Politico article [2]
|
| [1] - https://archive.is/jchny
|
| [2] - https://archive.is/0Dqys
| WA wrote:
| I love it. Especially since:
|
| _> The campaign has irked some recipients. "In terms of dialog
| within a democracy, this is not a dialog," said Lena Dupont, a
| German member of the European People's Party group and its home
| affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails._
|
| It is a dialog. Millions are against it, a few (powerful people)
| in favor. The powerful are too detached from reality and consider
| this "not a dialog".
|
| On a meta level, it even gives them a taste of the millions of
| messages that'd get flagged false positively monthly,
| overwhelming police and other systems.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Exactly. That's the right dialogue to have about this: repeated
| "no" combined with as much power and leverage can be brought to
| bear to get people out of office for trying.
|
| Make it a radioactive career-ending move to try.
| findthewords wrote:
| Not to accuse the Germans but politicians rarely protest
| lobbying when it involves bribes.
| bboygravity wrote:
| Feel free to accuse the Germans. Russian bribes is basically
| why they have some of the most expensive energy in the world
| now. They're surprisingly corrupt for a "developed" "high
| tech" nation.
|
| Search Gerhard Schroder for more info.
| Muromec wrote:
| This can't be, bribes can only happen in corrupt Eastern
| Europe. No way it's happening in founding EU member, they
| will be kicked out of the club at once
| nine_k wrote:
| It could be a dialog! A dialog takes two sides. Now that the
| other side has finally _heard_ the voice of literally millions
| of people who oppose Chat Control, it can _respond_
| intelligently, and a dialog would start.
|
| Saying "it's not a dialog" is just evading the (uncomfortable)
| dialog. Maybe some MEPs are going to actually engage in the
| dialog.
| brushfoot wrote:
| Yes, and in fact, Lena's response is part of the dialog. And
| its dismissiveness is telling. Not only does it reflect her
| attitude toward her constituents, it also exposes her tacit
| premise that digital communications are somehow unreal.
|
| It's as if, for her, only phone calls, speeches, or
| handwritten letters would be enough to start a dialog. She
| seems to be under the misapprehension that digital
| communication is something to which norms and laws and,
| fundamentally, _rights_ don 't apply. Which is a misguided
| and dangerous belief.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > It is a dialog.
|
| It's as much of a dialog as they allow for people to express
| their views. If I write a politician a well reasoned, thorough
| explanation of why I support or oppose something, the best
| outcome I get, as a non-lobbyist, is having a "for" or
| "against" viewpoint tallied into a giant bucket.
|
| So if elected reps are going to distill our "dialog" down to an
| aggregated tally of support or opposition, then a canned email
| covers the entire dialog that's allowed.
| Etheryte wrote:
| > Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or workplace
| because his employer does not want to be associated with the
| campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim said his
| employer has no commercial interest in the legislation, and he
| alone paid the costs associated with running the website.
|
| This type of approach from the journalist always confuses me. Why
| would his employer matter? What does that have to do with
| anything?
| standardUser wrote:
| Even before journalism was under a sustained assault from the
| right, clarifying potential conflicts of interest was fairly
| standard practice. Now, I see journalists more frequently
| bending over backwards to (futilely) preempt criticism.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Because astroturfing is a real thing and because finding hidden
| loyalties is frequently a good indicator that the source has
| been lying.
| kulahan wrote:
| Because there is a difference in optics between a guy doing
| something and a company (with likely much larger resources)
| doing the same thing.
|
| A person speaking up is cool. A company speaking up is
| lobbying.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Can we do something similar in the US?
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| I love the idea of making tools to make it easy for people to
| email their representatives, from their own mailboxes. Here's one
| I vibe coded for a specific purpose:
|
| https://crocker.vercel.app/
|
| After I made it, I came across something similar on another web
| site, but with some cool additional features:
|
| - support for multiple 'campaigns'
|
| - per-campaign questions (with drop down responses)
|
| - AI to customize the email and subject, instead of just filling
| in a template
| HackerThemAll wrote:
| How will the bill stop organized pedophile operations which
| certainly use specialized covert technologies, websites,
| messengers, sharing platforms unavailable in official app stores?
| Anyone thinking it's going to improve detection of such stuff is
| an idiot.
| Oarch wrote:
| I'm sure these politicians are doing all they can to pressure
| the US into releasing the Epstein list. Since they seem to care
| so much /s
| avhception wrote:
| Ah, nice. This actually helps me to feel less impotent about the
| issue. It feels like the umpteenth attempt, the politicians are
| starting to wear me down.
|
| But now I've taken the time to send mails and at least feel like
| I have done _something_. See you next time, I guess! @
| Politicians
| sib wrote:
| >> this is not a dialog
|
| "I do not think that word means what [she] thinks it means"
| blitz_skull wrote:
| I love how we're wringing our hands about the technological side
| of this fight.
|
| If every time we found someone with CSAM on their hard drive, we
| swung them from a tree--folks would think twice before engaging
| in the production and distribution of CSAM.
|
| We don't need to break encryption. We need real, permanent,
| consequences that fit the crime.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| I just hate how even in that article, they can put the phrase
| "those trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child
| sexual abuse material from spreading online." and to most regular
| people, it makes this dude sound like a bad guy. I mean why would
| he want to stop that?!?!
|
| It's sad how complex us humans think we are when our behaviours
| boil down to fairly predictable animal and tribal responses.
|
| And what I love about the general suffix above is that you can
| pop it on anything to make someone oppose to it sound bad: "those
| trying to implement mandatory home camera systems aimed at
| stopping child sexual abuse material from happening."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-08 23:00 UTC)