4 Sep
2025
4 Sep
'25
7:10 a.m.
Hello,
I have been recently reading about the "Chat Control" EU project.
For those interested, Tuta has a nice summary:
https://tuta.com/blog/chat-control-criticism
Reading the project, I have been surprised to see it could have deep consequences, not
only for big messaging players, but for any chat hosting providers.
The idea is that all providers should be able to monitor and report traffic defined as
prohibited by the state Coordinating Authority. Providers list include hosting service,
interpersonal communications services, for example. I did not see any exemption in terms
of platform sizes so I assume it could have a serious impact on XMPP server hosting.
I do not even see how it can be applied to an open protocol, given that you can connect to
a server with any compliant client, we would have no way to enforce a backdoor for message
scanning.
Have there been some discussion on that topic at the XSF ?
Is it really as catastrophic as it looks ? And if so, what should we do as members or as
XSF ?
Thanks !
--
Mickaël Rémond
22 Sep
22 Sep
7:45 a.m.
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 !
--
Mickaël Rémond
1:41 p.m.
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."
* "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 !
23 Sep
23 Sep
1:51 a.m.
Hello Eddie,
Thank you very much.
I hope other members agree. From my side, you are very welcome to reference this on the
XSF blog, sure.
Cheers,
-- Mickaël
7:59 a.m.
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 !
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 !
9 a.m.
Dear Ralphm:
Thank you for your prompt reply and due diligence.
I'll make sure to talk to Emus and the rest of the team to find out what would
be the best way to proceed and comply with your criteria.
Thank you very much Ralph!
Best regards
Gonzalo
El Tue, 23 Sep 2025 16:28:19 +0200
Ralph Meijer <ralphm(a)ik.nu> escribió:
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
9:01 a.m.
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
9:14 a.m.
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
9:19 a.m.
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
25 Sep
25 Sep
12:15 p.m.
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
26 Sep
26 Sep
3:10 a.m.
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
7:10 a.m.
Hello Benson,
Benson Muite wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree. The XSF post should be wider and mention that this message scanning
obligation could serve as a reference and expand to other countries if it was voted.
Thanks !
--
Mickaël Rémond
7 Oct
7 Oct
11:21 a.m.
Hi, there seem to be good news that the chat control will be stopped in
the EU: https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/115333943021246229
Am Freitag, dem 26.09.2025 um 12:10 +0300 schrieb Benson Muite:
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
3
days inactive
36
days old
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Arne-Brün -
Benson Muite -
E.M. -
Gonzalo Raul Nemmi -
Mickaël Rémond -
Ralph Meijer