Germany’s largest political bloc, the CDU/CSU, has come out against the European Union’s proposed “Chat Control” regulation, a measure that would require messaging services to scan private communications before encryption. German outlet Heise Online reported the EU Council vote, expected next week, has been pushed back, though that was not confirmed at the time of writing. Because member states representing at least 35% of the EU population can form a blocking minority, Germany’s stance could stall or sink the bill.
CDU/CSU leader Jens Spahn warned against the law’s reach: “That would be like opening all letters as a precaution and seeing if there’s anything forbidden in them. That’s not possible, it won’t happen with us.” Germany’s resistance follows months of pressure from civil society groups and industry voices who argue the proposal would gut end-to-end encryption.
Critics say the plan — formally the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse — would mandate client-side scanning that defeats encryption by design. Early Bitcoin developer Peter Todd called it “an incredible violation of communication privacy unprecedented in human history,” adding, “It must be stopped.” Others warn of scope creep, false positives that overwhelm police, and violations of EU fundamental rights.
Security experts also fear a new attack surface. “If the system is ever hacked, it could put millions of private conversations at risk,” said Shahar Madar of Fireblocks, noting prior intrusions on lawful intercept systems. Proponents in Brussels counter that voluntary efforts are insufficient in the face of soaring abuse reports.
The clash revives an old argument dating back to the 1990s Clipper Chip and, later, the Snowden disclosures. Cypherpunk thinkers predicted both the rise of private digital speech and the state’s push to monitor it. Even if “Chat Control” fails now, opponents expect the idea to return. “I think it’s most likely that it does not pass. However, they’ll try to get it passed again,” Todd said. For privacy advocates, the line remains clear: protecting children cannot mean building a backdoor into everyone’s messages.
