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 - https://restmedia.st/the-voluntary-trap-how-denmark-repackaged-chat-control-after-defeat/
It has been often said but I‘ll say it again: This is why you should be penalized as a politician and eventually as a country when you keep making essentially the same proposal in the EU over and over again and keep losing in a vote or worse get shut down by EU courts. We can‘t afford to keep discussing and voting on the same idea over and over and over again.
Votes about mass surveillance are becoming way too frequent and halt progress that needs to be made in so many other departments. It‘s parliament trolling at this point and wasting everyone’s time.
I have the feeling the danish MEPs have sold out to trump and Xi
Dane here. I don’t know exactly where Peter Hummelgaard’s rampant radical voyeurism stems from, but I see no reason why everybody else should accept being violated for his personal pleasure. Or whatever the fuck his malfunction is. Maybe he’s just a paid stooge working as a cutout for malicious actors.
I’d like his personal finances audited to ensure the latter isn’t the case. He can hardly complain: After all, if he’s got nothing to hide, he’s got nothing to fear and he does favor state surveillance based on the mere potential for crime. If mental illness is the problem, perhaps immediate treatment is in order.
He is only in favour of state surveillance if it doesn’t apply to him and other politicians - i.e. the people he needs to help him pass this law through.
We need things like fightchatcontrol.eu now more than ever. They’re trying to push it through “quickly”
Obviously. Like any other fascist ever it’s always “rules for thee, exemptions for me”. Just more proof that intervention is direly needed. Something’s not right with that boy.
That’s where you’re wrong ! Because that kind of surveillance is not for people like him, it’s only for the rest of us. He’s got things to hide because … Huh… State security! …Or something… If you don’t agree with that, you’re probably a pedo or a drug dealer anyway!
If mental illness is the problem, perhaps immediate treatment is in order.
Sounds like he’s got a serious case of “cricket bat deficiency”.
Seeing this a bit too often these days. Is the appropriate response suggesting an anti-bill which is focused on the main issue?
And why can they propose anti democratic bills like these anyhow? Isn’t privacy a right? Any proposal that infringes on this right should immediately be put down
Where’s all this stemming from? It smacks of Palantir…
Intéressant.
A society without control is the " loi du plus fort" the strongest will do what they want.Control is not the opposite of liberty, it is, in democracy the only way to protect the poor and weak people and defend humans rights.
Control and justice = liberty in democracies.
That works better if the ‘control’ applies to everyone.
Under this proposal, all politicians (the people needed to pass this proposal through law) are exempt from having their devices scanned.
In other words no control or monitoring over the rich and powerful, who are able to set up paedophile rings more efficiently and privately with their own havens or islands than any normal person.
