Of all people, it is center-right parties in Brussels that are supporting plans for the mass screening of private messages. The proposal cuts deep into civil liberties. The consequences for chats between teenagers and their own parents are particularly drastic.

The battle over “chat control” and the confidentiality of our communications has long since become the defining question regarding the relationship between the state and the citizen in the digital age. On December 4th, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Magnus Brunner (EPP) defended plans before the European Parliament that cut deeply into civil liberties. What is particularly bitter for conservative voters is that it is precisely the center-right-led governments in Berlin and Vienna that have helped secure a majority for this assault on privacy in Brussels. While the leader of the German CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Jens Spahn, assured the public in October that suspicionless scanning of chats was akin to “preemptively opening every letter to see if it contains something illegal”—and that neither he nor his party would support it—reality now looks quite different.

The EU governments have agreed on a rotten compromise. While “voluntary” chat control is technically supposed to be at the discretion of the providers, the result is the same: American tech giants like Meta or Google will be allowed to screen our private messages en masse and without any initial suspicion. The state is effectively outsourcing its monopoly on law enforcement and deputizing US corporations as sheriffs. Instead of independent judges, error-prone secret algorithms from Silicon Valley will decide whether our chats are suspicious.

Mr. Spahn still owes us an answer to a crucial question: How is this mass screening any different from suspicionless chat control? Would the indiscriminate opening of our letters be acceptable just because Deutsche Post decided to do it voluntarily? The privacy of correspondence is “inviolable” under our Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Privatized chat control remains a violation of fundamental principles in a constitutional state.

ID Cards for the Internet

Yet, hidden within the draft law on chat control is a perhaps even more perfidious attack on freedom—a clause with the potential to destroy the internet as we know it: The opening of an email or messenger account is to require mandatory age verification. What sounds like a technicality is actually political dynamite. It spells the end of the right to anonymous digital communication. Anyone wishing to use WhatsApp, Signal, or even a simple email inbox in the future will have to show their ID card or their face.

A whistleblower wishing to remain anonymous for fear of investigation will hardly dare to tip off a journalist about government corruption if they have to upload their ID to a database to do so. They are effectively being silenced. Investigative journalism, anonymous pastoral care, and confidential counseling in crisis situations will become impossible. Furthermore, it is only a matter of time before these internet ID databases are hacked, opening the floodgates for criminals to commit identity theft. Our security is not being protected here; it is being endangered. Moreover, a new bureaucratic monster is being created. While the economy groans under the weight of regulations, European tech start-ups and companies are being forced to implement complex new verification systems.

The State as Super-Nanny

The height of hubris, however, is the planned treatment of adolescents. According to the will of the EU governments, app stores should blanketly refuse the installation of apps to anyone under 17 if those apps could theoretically be misused for “cyber grooming.” The aim is to protect minors from being approached with sexual intent. However, since the State Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia notes that this occurs on almost all platforms—from WhatsApp and Instagram to online games—this regulation amounts to a digital ban on communication.

You have to let that sink in: A 16-year-old would no longer be allowed to chat with their class teacher, their coach, or—even more absurdly—with their own parents. The state presumes to know what is good for our children better than families do. The parental right to raise children, protected by the constitution, is being trampled underfoot. How well parents know their own children’s maturity no longer counts.

This is not child protection; it is digital house arrest. Instead of hunting the perpetrators, the victims are being locked up. This is the logic of an overreaching nanny state that mistrusts its citizens. True security comes from strong families, not from state paternalism that drives teenagers into digital isolation. It won’t work anyway: our children will simply ask us to register their phones as adult devices.

Ineffective Symbolic Politics

Overall, these measures miss their mark completely. The Association of German Criminal Investigators is already warning of an overload due to the flood of automated chat reports. Almost half of the reported chats are perfectly legal—such as holiday photos from the beach. There will be no time left for genuine cases because investigators will be busy screening harmless citizens.

The European Parliament has recognized this madness. Across party lines, it is demanding that chat surveillance be limited to actual suspects and is rejecting mandatory age checks and app bans. It is banking on civil principles: proportionality and targeted prosecution instead of mass surveillance and the paternalism of millions of innocent people.

However, without support from Berlin, this sensible position will not prevail in the upcoming negotiations on the final wording of the law. The center-right-led federal government must decide: Does it want the “transparent citizen” and the disempowerment of parents? Or will it return to the values of the Constitution? When the state begins to have our mail opened and forbids our children contact with the outside world, a red line has been crossed. We do not need a nanny from Brussels—and certainly not one from Berlin.

This guest commentary first appeared in Die Welt.

patrick-breyer.de/en/digital-h…

• Commissioner Brunner states preference for Parliament’s position over Council text and offers extension of interim rules
• Broad cross-party front in EU Parliament against mass surveillance and mandatory age checks
• Praise for Chief Negotiator Zarzalejos for uniting all political groups behind a “strong mandate”

Just days before the start of the decisive “Trilogue” negotiations on the controversial Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (CSAM), known by critics as “Chat Control,” the political tide in Brussels has turned. During a hearing in the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) today, the new EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Magnus Brunner, surprised MEPs by stating his preference for the European Parliament’s negotiating mandate over the draft law adopted by EU governments (the Council). This statement provides massive backing for the Parliament’s Chief Negotiator, Javier Zarzalejos (EPP), who has united an unusually broad coalition ranging from the Left to the Right behind his position.

Zarzalejos secures strong backing against mass surveillance and age control
While EU member state governments continue to push for mass scanning of private messages (at the discretion of providers), mandatory age verification for all users, and effective bans on communication apps for under-17s, the Parliament enters negotiations with a clear alternative model: Mandatory but targeted surveillance only where reasonable suspicion exists and with a judicial warrant, alongside a firm rejection of mandatory age checks and app lockouts for teenagers.

Javier Zarzalejos, Chair of the LIBE Committee and Rapporteur, emphasized during the meeting that the Parliament is entering negotiations with a “strong mandate” that is “supported by all political groups.”

Former MEP and co-negotiator Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) comments: “Credit is due to Javier Zarzalejos for uniting the Parliament on this crucial issue. With this strong mandate for fundamental rights and against indiscriminate surveillance, the Parliament is well-equipped to fend off the governments’ attack on digital secrecy and the right to anonymous communication.”

Committee Clash: An Alliance Against Surveillance
Today’s session highlighted how isolated the surveillance proponents have become after widespread citizen protests. MEPs from across the political spectrum sharply criticized the Council’s plans:

• Birgit Sippel (S&D) accused governments of misleading the public about the nature of “voluntary chat control” and criticized the lack of reliable data on the actual efficacy of mass scanning.
• Markéta Gregorová (Greens/EFA / Pirates) compared the planned chat control to physically opening every letter and demanded the Commission act as an “honest broker” in the upcoming negotiations.
• Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE) and Mary Khan (ESN) questioned mandatory age checks and the issue of liability for false suspicions, which could destroy the livelihoods of innocent citizens.
• Fabienne Keller (Renew) stressed the importance of swift negotiations in view of the expiring interim regulation, but stressed the need for a balanced legislative framework.

Commission’s Surprise Turn
While Commissioner Brunner rejected the term “Chat Control,” he sent a clear political signal: He offered to extend the current interim regulation (Derogation), which expires in April 2026, to remove time pressure from the negotiations and allow for a careful agreement. His open admission that he prefers the Parliament’s position (Zarzalejos report) over that of the Council is an unusual departure from the Commission’s standard support for EU governments.

Council Position Fragile
While the Parliament stands united, the Council’s mandate is built on shaky ground. The negotiating position of the member states was adopted without the support of key countries including Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Estonia, reflecting deep divisions among governments regarding the legality and proportionality of the measures.

The Trilogue negotiations are set to begin shortly. Thanks to the unified stance of the Parliament under Zarzalejos, chances have significantly improved that indiscriminate mass surveillance and the end of anonymous communication can be prevented.

Watch: Recording of today’s LIBE Committee meeting (skip to 10:10)

BACKGROUND: Key Battlegrounds in the Upcoming Trilogue

Two opposing worldviews will clash in the negotiations: The EU Parliament’s mandate (led by Javier Zarzalejos) focuses on targeted law enforcement and fundamental rights, while EU Governments (Council) push for broad monitoring and age restrictions.

1. Mass Surveillance vs. Targeted Investigation

• EU Governments (Council): Aim to cement so-called “voluntary” Chat Control. Providers like Meta or Google would be authorized to mass-scan private chats—not just for known abuse material, but also using error-prone AI to detect “new” material and text-based grooming.
  
  • The Risk: Police authorities warn of overloading. In 2024, nearly half (48%) of the chats reported to the German BKA were entirely legal (e.g., family beach photos).

  
  

• EU Parliament: Rejects indiscriminate scanning. Surveillance should occur only upon reasonable suspicion against specific individuals or groups and only with a judicial warrant. The “public web” should be proactively scanned, but private correspondence must remain private.

2. The End of Anonymity via Age Checks

• EU Governments (Council): Article 4 of the Council mandate effectively plans a mandatory ID check for all internet users. Users would have to upload an ID card, a facial scan, or use a state-issued “Wallet App” just to use email, messaging, or chat services.
  
  • The Risk: This marks the end of anonymous communication online. Whistleblowers, journalists’ sources, or political activists would no longer be protected by anonymity, as every account could be linked to a real-world identity.

  
  

• EU Parliament: Relies on “Security by Design” (safe defaults for children) and rejects mandatory age verification for messaging apps. Online anonymity must be preserved.

3. “Digital Lockout” for Under-17s

• EU Governments (Council): Article 6 of the Council text proposes prohibiting users under 17 from using apps with communication functions if there is a “significant risk” of cyber-grooming. Since studies show this risk exists almost everywhere (from WhatsApp to online games), this threatens a de facto app ban for teenagers.
• EU Parliament: Rejects age limits and app bans. The focus is on digital literacy and safety settings rather than excluding youth from digital participation.

Comment by Dr. Patrick Breyer (Digital Rights Expert, former MEP):

“Governments must be honest: While some claim to oppose ‘Chat Control,’ they have agreed to a Council text that allows US tech giants to do exactly that—massively scan our private lives. The Parliament, under Javier Zarzalejos, has charted a path compliant with fundamental rights: targeted pursuit of criminals instead of general suspicion against the entire population. If governments do not budge, we face a future where anonymous whistleblowing falls silent and teenagers are locked out of digital life.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-c…