I know, last time i checked It was indecided and im Happy its against now.

I Hope more countries Will shoft beacouse its not looking good

It seems the reason companies are currently allowed to do this in the EU is because there was in 2020 a temporary derogation from certain provisions of the e-Privacy Directive.

But it was temporary, so it will expire in April 2026. With this new law the intention is to make that "voluntary detection" a permanent thing they allow service providers to do, as a norm. The providers still have the choice to not do it, so I don't think this affects services like signal, as far as I understand.

Where is this explained? the article might be wrong then, because it does state the opposite:

scanning is now “voluntary” for individual EU states to decide upon

It makes it sound like it's each state/country the one deciding, and that the reason "companies can still be pressured to scan chats to avoid heavy fines or being blocked in the EU" was because of those countries forcing them.

Who's the one deciding what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”? if it's each country the ones deciding this, then it's each country who can opt to enforce chat scanning.. so to me that means the former, not the latter.

In fact, isn't the latter already a thing? ...I believe companies can already scan chats voluntarily, as long as they include this in their terms, and many do. A clear example is AI chats.

I recommend reading the dutch debate : tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/pl…

And yes, the latter is currently a thing (but in a weaker form) but will no longer be allowed in april 2026, which is why this law is getting pushed so hard. Currently chats can be asked by police/interpol/... But they need good reasons, and the results can be varying because chat platforms like signal do not keep chat messages/stuff.
The new law forces them to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements. It just allows for 'any system to get the needed info', it no longer says chat scanning is needed directly, but is rather indirectly which is as stupid and bad as before.

Thanks for the link, and the clarification (I didn't know about april 2026).. although it's still confusing, to be honest. In your link they seem to allude to this just being a way to maintain a voluntary detection that is "already part of the current practice"...

If that were the case, then at which point "the new law forces [chat providers] to have systems in place to catch or have data for law inforcements"? will services like signal, simplex, etc. really be forced to monitor the contents of the chats?

I don't find in the link discussion about situations in which providers will be forced to do chat detection. My understanding from reading that transcript is that there's no forced requirement on the providers to do this, or am I misunderstanding?

Just for reference, below is the relevant section translated (emphasis mine).

In what form does voluntary detection by providers take place, she asks. The exception to the e-Privacy Directive makes it possible for services to detect online sexual images and grooming on their services. The choice to do this lies with the providers of services themselves. They need to inform users in a clear, explicit and understandable way about the fact that they are doing this. This can be done, for example, through the general terms and conditions that must be accepted by the user. This is the current practice. Many platforms are already doing this and investing in improving detection techniques. For voluntary detection, think of Apple Child Safety — which is built into every iPhone by default — Instagram Teen Accounts and the protection settings for minors built into Snapchat and other large platforms. We want services to take responsibility for ourselves. That is an important starting point. According to the current proposal, this possibility would be made permanent.

My impression from reading the dutch, is that they are opposing this because of the lack of "periodic review" power that the EU would have if they make this voluntary detection a permanent thing. So they aren't worried about services like signal/simplex which wouldn't do detection anyway, but about the services that might opt to actually do detection but might do so without proper care for privacy/security.. or that will use detection for purposes that don't warrant it. At least that's what I understand from the below statement:

Nevertheless, the government sees an important risk in permanently making this voluntary detection. By permanently making the voluntary detection, the periodic review of the balance between the purpose of the detection and privacy and security considerations disappears. That is a concern for the cabinet. As a result, we as the Netherlands cannot fully support the proposal.

Id need to look for it again, but i remember reading she was saying that the current proposal is vague in what it sees as required to prevent what she calls risks. I remember them asking her multiple times if she was against a law to prevent csa and the sharing there off, in which she replied multiple times that she was not, but that the law was too vague about what it constitutes as necessary to prevent it. Did i dream it? ><

Edit: found it!

Mevrouw Kathmann (GroenLinks-PvdA):
Het is niet per se alleen zo dat de huidige praktijk wordt voortgezet. Er zitten bijvoorbeeld ook zinnen in het voorstel die aangeven dat álle risico's moeten worden weggenomen. Het is ongelofelijk vaag, een heel grijs gebied, wat dat betekent. Dat is één. Dat is echt een heel groot risico. Daarnaast noemde de heer Van Houwelingen net al het punt van de leeftijdsverificatie. We hebben niet goed met elkaar kunnen bespreken wat daar nou precies in voorligt en hoe wij daar verder mee om moeten gaan. Dit zijn twee dingen die ik er nu zo uitpik.

Ah, I see. Sorry, the text was too long and I'm not dutch so it was hard to spot that for me too.

But I interpret that part differently. I think them saying that there's an ambiguous section about risks does not necessarily mean that the ambiguity is in the responsibility of those who choose to not implement the detection.. it could be the opposite: risks related to the detection mechanism, when a service has chosen to add it.

I think we would need to actually see the text of the proposal to see where is that vague expression used that she's referring to.

Hi Sorry can i ask what Is XMPP?

Btw as a secure messgaing app i use simplex, mabye i Will look into matrix

danes are sucking thiels cock for their own wicked reasons.

as we've always said; never trust a dane!