I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:

The text aims to make the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.".

This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.

His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:

[…] This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account. […] This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication […]

This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone’s age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It’s totally possible that it’ll be a far worse system, but that’s just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.

It’s definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick’s Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.

I have to disagree with the statement that there is no voluntary law. For example, GDPR certifications (Art. 42) have been a thing for years, are encouraged by the EU, but have remained completely voluntary for organizations.

I totally agree with you that it’s important to stay vigilant and keep an eye on the further development of this specific regulation, especially as it still has a long way to go before actually becoming law. But I think seeing the compromise as some sort of trickery is purely speculative right now and doesn’t really do justice to the activists inside and outside EU organizations who have spent the last few years successfully preventing a mandatory chat control. A lot of the comments here seem very doom-and-gloomy, sometimes almost resigned, as if nothing has been accomplished by protesting these initial proposals. And I think, while there are definitely further battles ahead, it’s also a good idea to celebrate and remind ourselves of the accomplishments we’ve made here.

Yes

As this version of the law is completely voluntary, I don‘t think it will change anything. Secure chats won‘t implement it, because it‘s practically impossible, and insecure chats won‘t implement it, because there‘s absolutely no profit in it.

It‘s still completely unnecessary to have a law like this, as it won‘t help with anything. But at least it doesn‘t force any messaging applications to either break their encryption or leave the EU.

Also, as this is proposal is finally put into law, there‘s one less battle to be fought by privacy activists (for now).

So all in all: The worst has been successfully averted, I think we can celebrate that. But the next privacy invading proposal will come soon enough.

Although the Telekom is a European alternative, I‘d urge everyone to look for other alternatives first. They‘re actively sabotaging net neutrality (Source 1 [German], Source 2 [German]) and their CEO, Tim Höttges, is a big fan of Elon Musk and DOGE [German].

If these are things you disagree with, I‘d strongly recommend not supporting them.