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: And it will .. as studied in detail in Michel Foucault's "Discipline & Punish". Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent reply to Mickaël's call and my PR. Best regards Gonzalo

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: >> > 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 ! >> > >> > >Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent reply >to Mickaël's call and my PR. > >Best regards >Gonzalo

Possibly, but given Mikael's already extensive technical background article, said open letter would need to be shorter and can still link to that post. I missed that exception. I'm curious how that would work in practice, particularly with XMPP and Matrix. On 23 September 2025 17:01:08 CEST, "Arne-Brün" <arne-bruen(a)monocles.de> wrote: >Hi, maybe I misread something since I'm in a hurry today but shouldn't we as the XSF write an open letter? > >For me it looks like the EU wants more control, restrictions and laws instead of really solving problems and this for the costs of many innocent people. Especially since government members are excluded it feels like a move to a very unhealthy system. > >Greetings, > >Arne > >Am 23. September 2025 16:28:19 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu>nu>: >>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: >>>> > 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 ! >>>> > >>>> >>> >>>Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent reply >>>to Mickaël's call and my PR. >>> >>>Best regards >>>Gonzalo

Agreed. I've been out for the last couple of days, and haven't been able to spend time on this. Mikael, one factual thing you should correct in the article is about the 14 October vote itself. As far as I understand, the vote is with the EU Council, not the Parliament. On 23 September 2025 17:19:36 CEST, "Arne-Brün" <arne-bruen(a)monocles.de> wrote: >Yes, I'm really thankfull about Mickaëls article which should be linked. I thought about a more generell statement from the XSF. But then we would need to discuss what should be included. > > >Am 23. September 2025 17:14:21 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu>nu>: >>Possibly, but given Mikael's already extensive technical background article, said open letter would need to be shorter and can still link to that post. >> >>I missed that exception. I'm curious how that would work in practice, particularly with XMPP and Matrix. >> >> >>On 23 September 2025 17:01:08 CEST, "Arne-Brün" <arne-bruen(a)monocles.de> wrote: >>>Hi, maybe I misread something since I'm in a hurry today but shouldn't we as the XSF write an open letter? >>> >>>For me it looks like the EU wants more control, restrictions and laws instead of really solving problems and this for the costs of many innocent people. Especially since government members are excluded it feels like a move to a very unhealthy system. >>> >>>Greetings, >>> >>>Arne >>> >>>Am 23. September 2025 16:28:19 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu>nu>: >>>>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: >>>>>> > 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 ! >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent reply >>>>>to Mickaël's call and my PR. >>>>> >>>>>Best regards >>>>>Gonzalo

It would be helpful to have a more general statement as other regions also have regulations that people using XMPP protocols and other electronic messaging providers need to follow. Many XSF active participants are based in the EU and North America, but my understanding is that regions outside of these have XMPP developers as have been/could be impacted by regulations on how they run services built on top of the XMPP protocols. On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, at 9:15 PM, Ralph Meijer wrote: > Agreed. I've been out for the last couple of days, and haven't been > able to spend time on this. > > Mikael, one factual thing you should correct in the article is > about > the 14 October vote itself. As far as I understand, the vote is > with > the EU Council, not the Parliament. > > > On 23 September 2025 17:19:36 CEST, "Arne-Brün" > <arne-bruen(a)monocles.de> wrote: > > Yes, I'm really thankfull about Mickaëls article which should be > > linked. I thought about a more generell statement from the XSF. > > But then we would need to discuss what should be included. > > > > > > Am 23. September 2025 17:14:21 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer > > <ralphm(a)ik.nu>nu>: > > > Possibly, but given Mikael's already extensive technical > > > background article, said open letter would need to be shorter > > > and can still link to that post. > > > > > > I missed that exception. I'm curious how that would work in > > > practice, particularly with XMPP and Matrix. > > > > > > > > > On 23 September 2025 17:01:08 CEST, "Arne-Brün" > > > <arne-bruen(a)monocles.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, maybe I misread something since I'm in a hurry today but > > > > shouldn't we as the XSF write an open letter? > > > > > > > > For me it looks like the EU wants more control, restrictions > > > > and laws instead of really solving problems and this for the > > > > costs of many innocent people. Especially since government > > > > members are excluded it feels like a move to a very unhealthy > > > > system. > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > Arne > > > > > > > > Am 23. September 2025 16:28:19 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer > > > > <ralphm(a)ik.nu>nu>: > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > 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 ! > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your > > > > > > prompt and diligent reply > > > > > > to Mickaël's call and my PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Gonzalo