A major political confrontation over online privacy is looming as European governments prepare to decide on the European Commission’s revised proposal “Chat Control 2.0” to monitor private digital communications.
The plan, which could be backed behind closed doors, has drawn immediate warning from jurist and former member of the European Parliament Dr Patrick Breyer, who says the draft hides sweeping new surveillance powers under confusing language about “risk mitigation” and “child protection”.
In a release sent to Reclaim the Net, Breyer, a longtime defender of digital freedom, argues that the Commission has quietly reintroduced mandatory scanning of private messages after previously rejecting it.
He describes the move as a “deceptive sleight of hand”, insisting that it turns a supposedly voluntary framework into a system that could force all chat, email and messaging providers to monitor users.
“This is political deception of the highest order,” Breyer said.
“After strong public outcry, many member states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Austria, said ‘no’ to indiscriminate chat control. Now it is coming back, disguised by the backdoor, more dangerous and more widespread than ever before. The public is being played for fools.”
Under the new text, providers will be obliged to take “all appropriate risk mitigation measures” to prevent abuse on their platforms. While the commission presents this as a flexible security requirement, Breyer says it’s a loophole that could force companies to scan every private message, including those protected by end-to-end encryption.
“The much-vaunted removal of loophole detection orders becomes redundant and negates their purported voluntary nature,” he said.
They warn that it could also lead to the introduction of “client-side scanning”, where users’ devices themselves are monitored before messages are sent.
Unlike the current temporary exemption known as “Chat Control 1.0,” which allows voluntary scanning of photos and videos, the new draft would open the door to text and metadata analysis. Algorithms and artificial intelligence can be deployed to monitor interactions and flag “suspicious” content.
Breyer says such automated checks cannot explain the context and risks of normal exchanges. “No AI can reliably distinguish between flirtation, sarcasm, and criminal ‘grooming,'” he said. “Imagine your phone scanning every conversation you have with your partner, your daughter, your therapist and leaking it just because the word ‘love’ or ‘meet’ comes up somewhere. This is not child protection, this is a digital witch hunt.”
According to Breyer, the existing voluntary system has already proven flawed, with German police reporting that about half of all marked cases are irrelevant.
The proposal also has major implications for online identity and anonymity. A new requirement will force users to verify their age before creating accounts on messaging or email platforms, an obligation that would require an official ID or biometric check.
Breyer argues that such measures effectively eliminate anonymous communication. He said, “This is the de facto end of anonymous communication online, a disaster for whistleblowers, journalists, political activists and people seeking help who rely on the protection of anonymity.”
He also condemned the provision banning minors under 16 from using messaging and social media platforms with chat functions. “Digital isolation instead of education, protection by exclusion instead of empowerment, this is patriarchal, out of touch with reality and academic nonsense,” he warned.
Breyer is calling on EU governments that have previously opposed mass surveillance, including Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Czechia, Luxembourg, Finland, Austria and Estonia, to block the regulation in its current form.
“Now, these governments need to show some spine!” He requested. “Stop this sham agreement in the Council and demand immediate reform to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens.”
He proposes a series of specific changes before any agreement can be put forward: a guarantee that “risk mitigation” cannot be used to mandate scanning, a ban on AI-powered surveillance of text conversations, strict judicial oversight for targeted investigations, and protection of anonymous access to communications devices.
Breyer concluded, “They’re selling us security but giving us a complete surveillance machine.”
“They promise child protection but punish our children and criminalize privacy. This is not a compromise; this is a fraud against the citizen. And no democratic government should make itself complicit.”