The Voluntary Trap: How Denmark Repackaged Chat Control After Defeat
Cross posted from: feddit.uk/post/39979757
After Germany blocked the October vote, Europe’s surveillance proposal didn’t die—it evolved. Denmark’s November compromise claims to abandon mandatory scanning while preserving identical outcomes through legal sleight of hand. The repackaging reveals the essential dynamic: when democratic opposition defeats mass surveillance, proponents don’t accept defeat. They redraft terminology, shift articles, and reintroduce the same architecture under different labels until resistance exhausts itself.
The pattern is documented across five iterations. Sweden’s January-June 2023 presidency failed. Belgium couldn’t secure passage in June 2024. Hungary’s presidency ended December 31, 2024 without achieving agreement. Poland’s presidency collapsed in January-June 2025 when 16 pro-scanning states refused meaningful compromise. Each defeat produced not withdrawal but repackaging: “chat control” became “child sexual abuse regulation,” “scanning” became “detection orders,” “mandatory” became “risk mitigation,” and “breaking encryption” became “lawful access.” October’s blocking minority forced Denmark’s hand, but rather than accepting defeat, Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard withdrew the proposal on October 31 and immediately began drafting version 2.0.
The Loophole Disguised as Compromise
Denmark’s November 5 revised text removes Articles 7-11’s “detection orders”—the language mandating scanning. Privacy advocates initially celebrated. Then legal experts read Article 4. The provision requires all communication providers implement “all appropriate risk mitigation measures” to prevent abuse on their platforms. Services classified as “high risk”—essentially any platform offering encryption, anonymity, or real-time communications—face obligations that experts argue constitute mandatory scanning without using the word “mandatory.”
Continue reading this article - restmedia.st/the-voluntary-tra…
Anonymouse
in reply to Babalugats • • •This just means that it's not about protecting citizens or vulnerable individuals. The fact that the law won't say the true reason likely means that the real reason is unpopular or at a minimum something that nobody can get behind.
I saw something in The Oatmeal line ago about pairing abstract ideas with concrete ones. IIRC, the example was to tie Bald Eagle extinction to Twinkies (in the US, presumably) such that if bald eagles go extinct, so do Twinkies. It'd be useful to pair the right to privacy with another right, such as the right to free speech (in the US, for example). That way, if these types of laws pass, so would free speech, something that most people seem to value.