23 Sep
2025
23 Sep
'25
8:28 a.m.
Thanks again Michaël for writing this. I fully agree that this legislation is misguided,
counter-productive and actively harmful, even just on technical grounds. I support
referencing the post already published over at Process One.
Gonzalo, I think the blog post should not copy the text wholesale, but instead reference
it by link and provide context from the perspective of a standards organization like
ours.
Cheers,
ralphm
On 23 September 2025 15:59:20 CEST, Gonzalo Raul Nemmi <gnemmi(a)cpacf.org.ar> wrote:
Dear Mickaël and Emus:
As the author of the referenced PR, I think it goes without saying that I agree
with Mickaël's argument, even if personally and as a lawyer I may have a more
pessimistic and darker view about the most likely outcome of a piece of
legislation of this nature.
As I have come to learn way back at the university and over my 20+ years of
experience as a lawyer, nothing good ever came out from the truncation of civil
liberties nor, like in this case, basic Human Rights like privacy (Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 12) or free speech ( see the Preamble of
the same document ), with complete disregard of how good the arguments used as a
cause may have been.
It is my understanding that, shall the 'Chat Control' proposal come to pass, it
will have a direct and undeniable impact on the XSF and its main product: the
XMPP protocol ... and the whole ecosystem it sustains.
With the impending voting so close on the horizon ( October 14th ), it
is my most humble opinion that this matter should be treated as soon as
possible by the relevant persons and with the due diligence it deserves.
El Mon, 22 Sep 2025 21:41:21 +0200 "E.M." <emus(a)mailbox.org> escribió:
Dear Mickaël,
many thanks for reaching out and also many thanks for this article.
I second what you state and formulate in this text. There are very
strong statements, especially the quotes below.
If the others agree, we could reference this in our blog. I believe this
is important and we should even consider to forward this to relevant
persons. One of our members already stepped ahead:
https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1563
(Mickaël, I assume you are okay with this?)
Best regards,
Eddie
_________
* "The concern isn't about protecting illegal content, it's about
protecting democratic discourse. Private conversations could become
subject to monitoring based on shifting political definitions of harmful
speech. What begins as child protection infrastructure could evolve into
a tool for suppressing political opposition or monitoring dissenting
opinions in private communications."
And it will .. as studied in detail in Michel Foucault's "Discipline &
Punish".
* "The programmed death of European
alternatives. This regulation
creates a structural disadvantage for European communication services
trying to build alternatives to US tech giants."
* "The October 14th vote represents more than a policy choice about
child protection. It's a decision about whether Europe will cripple its
own communication infrastructure in pursuit of surveillance capabilities
that won't work as promised."
On 22/09/2025 15:45, Mickaël Rémond wrote:
Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent reply
to Mickaël's call and my PR.
Best regards
Gonzalo Hello,
I tried to make a technical argument here:
https://www.process-one.net/blog/chat-control-2025/
Feel free to send me your feedback if you find any mistake or inaccuracy.
Thanks !