You don't make it illegal, you simply ban who the people are voting for, even retroactively if necessary.

True, but this is the same as with most EU countries government. In France, I can contact my Ministers... but to what avail!

I'm pretty sure that if this passes, the EU Court of Justice will eventually find it more or less in violation with EU fundamental rights.

That will take time, though, so I guess they are either hoping that some impossibly secure, reliable and unerring technologies emerge in the meantime, or they are prepared for a forever battle with the Court, coming up with ever new adjustments as soon as previous schemes get struck down[1], meanwhile allowing European law enforcement agencies to keep testing, developing and iterating on whatever client-side scanning or other techno-legal approaches they may come up with. I think this was roughly what they — ie, basically a group of a dozen or two law enforcement reps from different member states agencies and ministries along with like one lonely independent information security expert — said themselves in some working group report as part of some kind of Commission roadmap thing presented by von der Leyen not too long ago.

[1] On the data protection side we've already seen this kind of perpetual movement through the years with respect to different “safeguarding” mechanisms made available to enable transfers of personal data to the US without too much hassle, from Safe Harbor through Privacy Shield to the current Data Privacy Framework.

I'm totally opposed to this law. My comment was about the fact that the EU is imposing their view on EU countries, like we have no say on the matter. I emailed all my MEPs to oppose this proposal.

There are people with no backing, not even existing parties, that get elected as EU representatives. So its not that difficult to run if you have a platform some people care about.

It is much easier to break into EU than the local governments, since EU has so much less power, so you have more weird people there.

It will not be if chat control passes, and I am not sure it was true most of the time before (there was no significant change between Brexit and the Online Safety Act)

There were similar problems in areas other than privacy and encryption, or indeed technology.

It is, but i would rather take toothless UK's one over EU's Orwellian nightmare.

UK's one is easily avoided.

But reality is that NONE of those options should be even considered.

how so?

A massive unrest and protests.

as another comment suggest "A massive unrest and protests."

but not for chat control but another things, they have going much worse

My EU skepticism is gonna skyrocket if Chat Control goes through and I will start voting for the anti-EU party. Whatever benefits the EU has is not worth losing our freedoms.

> EU skepticism is at a 15 year low, and general approval hasnt been higher since 2007.

My observations are different.

The EU doesn't implement any of its policies by itself, ergo it should not require an executive branch of its own. There is no EU army, no EU police. We already have an instance of that in each member state which is required to implement EU laws on its territory, the Council of Ministers coordinates on that afaik.

The general process is a bit like this, simplified:

- the Council of heads of state appoints the Commission

- the Commission proposes laws

- the Parliament approves laws

- the Council of ministers implements them

- the Court blocks any unconstitutional laws

The problem has been for the longest time that the Commission appointments are not elected, somewhat mired in cronyism, and they keep proposing nonsense laws while the elected parliament can just stand there and vote no while not being able to suggest any legislation we actually need.