Writing in the October 9 Die Welt, Andreas Rosenvelder observed that then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt said something remarkable in a 2009 interview: “If there’s something you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t do it.” The advice seems harmless, like that of an older brother, but it’s also the fundamental rule of all surveillance states. “Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear”: this propaganda line is common to all authoritarian regimes. They pretend that the surveillance of all aspects of life is merely a problem of those with something to hide, for whatever reason, rather than the end of the freedom of all citizens. This is precisely the principle followed by the European Union (EU) with its “chat control” project.

The EU Regulation known as Chat Control (or Regulation on CSAM – Child Sexual Abuse Material) is a legislative proposal from the European Commission, presented in May 2022 as part of a broader strategy to combat child sexual abuse online. As part of that strategy, the controversial regulation would require mandatory scanning of private messages and digital content for child abuse, undermining end-to-end encryption. For this process to occur, the check would need to be implemented before end-to-end encryption. In essence, Chat Control is chat surveillance and works by accessing everything on a device, indiscriminately monitoring everything. The proposal is so dangerous that Signal, a privacy-first social messaging platform, has stated it will remove its app from the EU if Chat Control is approved.

Tuta (formerly Tutanota) claims that “the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU is proposing a new version of Chat Control, worse than the previous ones: the Danish version pushes towards the creation of an Orwellian world. The Danish Minister of Justice and main architect of the current chat control proposal, Peter Hummelgaard, even stated, “We must break with the totally misguided perception that it is everyone’s civil liberty to communicate over encrypted messaging services.”

Initial voting date 

The vote was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, in the EU Council, under the Danish Presidency, as the final step in approving the regulation after years of negotiations. This would have required a qualified majority (at least 15 member states representing 65% of the EU population). The proposal, presented by the EU Commission in 2022, had already been amended several times, but remained criticized for its privacy implications.

The vote was blocked at the last minute by the decision of Germany—the EU’s most populous country, with approximately 83.5 million inhabitants (19% of the total population)—to formally oppose the measure. Announced on October 8, this position creates a “blocking minority” (at least four states representing 35% of the EU population), making approval impossible. Without Germany, even if countries like Italy, Belgium, and Sweden were to decide to support the text, the necessary majority would not be reached. Germany, which had been undecided until shortly before, confirmed that it would not favor the proposal, derailing the plan.  This time we must be grateful to Germany, which with its “Nein” destroyed Ursula von der Leyen’s dystopian dream.

The role of protests and opposition

The blockade was primarily attributed to a massive civil mobilization and coordinated pressure from activists, scientists, NGOs, and tech companies, who inundated politicians with thousands of emails, calls, and petitions in the preceding weeks. This “onslaught” convinced the German Social Democrats to maintain a hard line and prompted the conservatives (CDU/CSU) to openly criticize the bill for the first time. Without this “tireless” resistance, as activist Patrick Breyer (former MEP for the Pirate Party) stated, EU governments “would have passed a totalitarian mass surveillance law next week, marking the end of digital privacy.”

Italy’s position

Italy initially supported the proposed Chat Control but in early October shifted its position to an “undecided” stance, contributing to the pressure that led to the postponement of the October 14 vote. This shift is attributed to internal EU and domestic pressures, including a lack of awareness among Italian parliamentarians, many of whom were not fully informed or deemed the matter one exclusively for the European Parliament.

The Relationship Between Privacy Protection and the Vitality of Democracy

The protection of privacy is a vital pillar of democracy, serving as a bulwark against the abuse of power, self-censorship, and mass surveillance. In a healthy democracy, privacy guarantees individuals the freedom to express dissenting ideas, participate in public debate without fear of reprisal, and protect intimate spaces necessary for personal and collective development. Without it, state or corporate surveillance erodes trust in institutions, stifles pluralism, and fosters authoritarian regimes, transforming democracy into a formal appearance devoid of substance. This relationship is rooted in the history of law, where privacy emerged as the “right to be left alone” to counter invasions of the private sphere, essential to the exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and association.

Privacy as the Foundation of Democracy

Privacy is not a luxury but a sine qua non for democracy, as it protects individuals from arbitrary interference that could silence critical voices. As highlighted by the Italian Data Protection Authority, “privacy has always been a cornerstone of Italian democracy,” embodying profound needs for personal protection that must be balanced with other values ​​without being undermined, at the risk of undermining the democratic fabric. This principle dates back to the origins of the right to privacy, formulated in 1890 by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, who, in their essay published in the Harvard Law Review, cited Justice Cooley’s famous phrase, “the right to be left alone,” to defend private life from intrusions by the press and public authorities. This right then evolved into successive generations of rights that include the protection of personal data in the Italian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As mentioned earlier, the right to privacy must be balanced with other values. Stefano Rodotà, a pioneer of privacy in Italy, was right when, in a speech presenting the Report of the Italian Data Protection Authority, he stated that “embodying profound needs for personal protection, privacy must be balanced with other values, but it cannot be erased or undermined, as this would undermine the democratic balance” (emphasis added).

Privacy protection must be even more safeguarded and valued today, precisely because of the ongoing development of technologies using Artificial Intelligence. Thanks to their ability to process enormous amounts of data (big data), these technologies allow for unprecedented intrusions into the private lives of individual citizens. When used by both state authorities and private companies, the technologies lead directly to a mass surveillance state typical of tyrannies.

Indeed, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) rightly points out, “Client-side scanning fundamentally undermines end-to-end encryption and obliterates our right to private spaces. […] If the government gains access to one of the ‘end points’ of an end-to-end encrypted communication, that communication is no longer safe and secure.” The EFF argues that Chat Control would transform devices into “bugs in our pockets at the service of governments, foreign or domestic,” posing global risks for journalists, activists, whistleblowers, and individual citizens. “Mass scanning of everything on our devices is invasive, unsustainable, and must be rejected.”

The European Digital Rights (EDRi) also states that “Chat Control’s negative impact on democracy would be unprecedented. And by legitimizing these dangerous practices, the EU would send a signal to the rest of the world that there can be no privacy in digital communications.” EDRi denounces mass surveillance with unreliable AI filters as “textbook mass surveillance,” violating the principle of the presumption of innocence, and threatens freedom of expression with age verification that excludes anonymity.

Tuta (formerly Tutanota) denounces the violation of fundamental rights and illegal backdoors. “The project violates fundamental rights, weakens encryption, and is unlikely to survive in court—achieving nothing for the protection of children while destroying everyone’s privacy.” Tuta highlights how mandatory scanning creates “backdoors in encryption” for over 450 million EU citizens, exempting governments and militaries in an “Orwellian world,” and denounces AI companies’ lobbying for disproportionate mass surveillance. He calls for contacting ministers in Germany and other undecided countries before the vote, threatening legal action if it is approved.

Tyrannical visions hide behind good intentions

Following the Digital Services Act (DSA), a European regulation regulating online intermediary services (such as social media platforms, marketplaces, and search engines) aimed at combating the spread of disinformation, hate speech, or illegal content, and creating a safer and more responsible digital environment, which is causing so much damage to freedom of speech, another regulation is now being passed that would seriously intrude on our privacy. This new, Orwellian measure would add another stone to the wall of surveillance surrounding the prison in which European citizens would be held, their freedom of speech muzzled by surveillance and spying on every moment of personal expression.

It is important at this point to recall the powerful speech made by U.S. Vice President JD Vance last February 14 at the Munich Security Conference:

I deeply believe there is no security if you fear the voices, opinions, and consciences that guide your people. Europe faces many challenges. But the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we must all face together, is a crisis of our own making. If you fear your constituents, America can do nothing for you. (…)

I believe that dismissing people, ignoring their concerns, or, worse still, shutting down the media, elections, or excluding people from the political process doesn’t protect anything. In fact, it’s the surest way to destroy democracy. Speaking out and expressing opinions isn’t electoral interference. Even when people express opinions outside your country, and even when those people are very influential (…)

A battle has been won but not the war

Although the October 14 vote was cancelled, the battle is not over: supporters could reintroduce the text or extend the current version (Chat Control 1.0, which allows voluntary scans).

Patrick Breyer said: “The protest is working! This is a tremendous victory for freedom, but the fight is far from over.” Eglė Markevičiūtė (Consumer Choice Center Europe) warns: “Privacy won this week, but in European style, the same ideas are resurfacing under different labels. We must remain vigilant.” For this reason, Breyer is calling on EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to drop the proposal and adopt alternatives. Breyer’s conviction is also mine: our freedom and our democracy are at stake.