What is chat control?

It is a mass scanning of our private conversations carried out by digital platforms using artificial intelligence algorithms, under the pretext of searching for alleged evidence of paedophilia, smuggling or other crimes.

How does chat control work?

There are two versions. The first is the so-called 1.0 version, which does not affect encrypted communications; it therefore scans ‘only’ services such as Gmail or Instagram direct messages. Furthermore, its implementation is voluntary on the part of the platforms.

Then there is the so-called 2.0 version, which is mandatory (all platforms are required to implement it) and also affects encrypted messages, such as those on WhatsApp or Signal.

In how many countries around the world is chat control in place?

In all countries, except those in the European Union and the United States.
The British have it, the Canadians have it, the Australians have it, as do the Brazilians, the Indians and, of course, all dictatorial countries.

It hasn’t yet been implemented here simply because the European Parliament, at least until yesterday, had always said no.

How many European governments would like to see chat control introduced in their countries?

In the so-called 1.0 version, twenty-three governments; in the so-called 2.0 version, at least fourteen governments.
It is therefore clear that, were it not for the obstacle of the European Parliament – which must be dealt with in accordance with the Treaties – we would all already be under surveillance today.

Is the chat control on the left or the right?

Is it a conspiracy bythe globalistelite or a tool of repression used by fascist reactionaries?

The truth is that pretty much everyone has taken advantage of it, depending on what suited them best.
Yesterday in Brussels, it was the People’s Party – that is, the centre-right party – that tabled a motion on chat control.
By contrast, back in March, through the European Commission, the regulation had been put forward by certain Scandinavian members of the Socialist and Democratic Party – that is, the centre-left party.

The Italian Lega, for instance, has voted for or against it on each occasion, depending on the propaganda it needed to push at the time.

Is it really effective against paedophiles?

The answer is: who cares?
Violating the privacy of hundreds of millions of people’s conversations cannot be justified under any circumstances.

That said, it doesn’t even help in tracking down paedophiles.
In fact, it produces a huge number of false positives: people whom the algorithm identifies as paedophiles when in reality they are not. I think we can all agree that there is nothing worse in the world than being accused of this abomination without actually having committed it.
Similarly, the system produces thousands of false negatives – that is, people who commit the offence but are not identified.

Incidentally, Europol – the police organisation that shares information and methods amongst all 27 EU member states – has far more sophisticated methods, including digital ones, for identifying paedophiles.
But it always applies these methods following a complaint and under a judge’s warrant; it does not go fishing around, reading people’s conversations and prying into their personal affairs.

What happened yesterday in Brussels?

It was a dark chapter in the history of democracy.
The Council of the EU – that is, the representatives of the governments of the individual member states – convened Parliament for an emergency session under a special procedure, in which an absolute majority of votes (361) was required to reject the proposal, one day before the summer recess.

Scores of representatives (including 24 Italian MEPs) did not turn up, probably because they were on holiday.
It is easy to be sarcastic about the fact that any one of us, in their place, would have rushed back to Brussels for such a serious matter.
However, the fact remains that there were only 314 votes against ‘chat control’, and consequently, the so-called ‘1.0’ version should be ratified in a few months’ time following negotiations with the Council.

This is an unprecedented institutional affront. The European Parliament had already rejected the proposal twice, and the insistence on forcing it to vote on it again – using a fraudulent procedure to extract a ‘yes’ vote even when there were more votes for ‘no’ – is, this is for sure, the behaviour of stalkers and maniacs.

Will the struggle continue?

Of course, that’s not the end of the matter.
An appeal may be lodged with the European Court of Human Rights for a breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the ECHR.
An appeal may be lodged with the Court of Justice of the European Union specifically against the procedure, which was imposed without there being any genuine and justified urgency.
An appeal can be lodged with the European Ombudsman.
And above all, we can put pressure on our governments to block the legislation in the Council and tell their parliamentary majorities not to ratify it in their national parliaments.

The European Union is currently one of the few remaining ‘happy islands’ in the world without chat control: to stoop to the same level as China would be spiritual suicide even before it is political suicide.

But why do they care so much?

It would be easy to pin all the blame on the lobbies – and in particular on the American Big Tech companies – which pour rivers of money into the pockets of MEPs in order to secure the coveted licence to collect personal data indiscriminately.
But, like all economicist explanations that border on conspiracy theories, this would be a convenient shortcut.

In my view, there is a deeper and more disturbing social malaise at play here. Let’s not kid ourselves: for millions of our colleagues, acquaintances and family members, the fight against paedophilia amply justifies mass surveillance.
Generally speaking, it is undeniable that the battle between freedom and security is turning out very badly for freedom: in the specific case of chat monitoring, moreover, propaganda can pit visible suffering against invisible suffering – the suffering of a child against that of an adult. The contest is objectively lopsided.

Despite the many complaints about liberalism, the truth is that over the course of recent generations the power of the authorities has grown enormously and continues to do so.
The state administers ever-increasing wealth, produces ever-more laws on every conceivable subject, and encroaches on every aspect of private life, from the upbringing of children to mental health.
And it does not do so because of a conspiracy or the influence of lobbies: it does so because voters, gripped by a perpetual and growing anxiety about the world around them, beg it to do so.

Palantir and its associates are only too happy to capitalise on this, merging with state authority into a single bionic monster. But this offer would not exist were it not for an overwhelming demand for protection, for the elimination of risk, for the removal of the unexpected, and for the creation of an impossible paradise without death or pain, right here in the material world.

The impression is that of a tide rising inexorably, which the embankments will not be enough to hold back. We, the wrecks of the old world, will fight on these embankments for as long as we have the breath to do so. But the outcome, barring any major surprises, seems a foregone conclusion.