You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.

I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.

What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?

No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.

Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.

Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.

So there is one decent thing in this law, let’s pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.

Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?

Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don’t support this option, companies can’t really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.

And I’m sure law enforcement already does that.

Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.

Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.

The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.

I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.