EU Chatcontrol 2.0 [video]
peertube.european-pirates.eu
peertube.european-pirates.eu
Without art or literature that draws out the terror I don't think most people can really envisage the danger we're all being put in. Without popular consciousness of the problem, it's all the more likely to happen.
And, if he writes a screenplay about it that probably means it already happened.
Links:
I'd really like to simply reference a classic movie or book as a conversation ender every time this shit cropped up rather than explain abstract risks from scratch in a less than engaging fashion.
Anyway. This isnt a problem I can solve.
Links:
Even under totalitarian communist rule, the vast majority of population were not political prisoners.
Honestly, 1984 should be enough as it's not a big jump from 1984 telescreens to Google/Facebook.
"Yeah, I never did feel great about the time that old search engine company renamed themselves "Web", but I guess the name stuck"
Black Mirror is just an example. And the whole “social media ruined the life of this one unsuspecting person” plotline is pretty boring and on-the-nose by now.
People don't realize how deep the shit is becoming despite all these. We have successfully amused ourselves to death. (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death )
"Slaughterbots" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg) shows a terror angle for some of what technology can do (drones).
Yep, I'm fucked :D
However, it becomes scary when the people with access are much less level-headed. There are people who think gay people or watching porn should require treatment. There have been power changes where people with drastically different views have an agenda to push, and your innocuous "not really that bad" is all of a sudden an imprisonable offense because you "think differently" and you might encourage others.
This sounds like the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument.
The history allows such a state to construct a narrative where everybody else thinks you're guilty, based on your messages and porn history and so on. Cherry-picking, quoting out of context, etc. This allows the state to legitimise their actions, where torture would fail to do so.
Make everyone fear each other.
It's only not about things that are incriminating. Suppose you were a witness to something nobody was supposed to know about and now you're to be disposed of.
If they have your message history, they have your full contact list, your relationships with them, who you trust the most, where you like to hang out, who owes you money or favors you could call in. You're completely isolated. For sure you can't use any kind of ATM or credit card or find work anywhere they'd expect you to provide a social security number.
How far can you get if you can't buy gas or travel tickets? What do you do for food?
I think it’s a bit unfair to ask someone to throw away their (assuming American) 5th Amendment rights to make a point.
To paint with a broad and nonspecific brush, the UK government has regular surveys asking about drug use[0] which show that in the year ending March 2020, 7.4% of young adults used a class A drug. Possession of that class carries a maximum penalty of 7 years and an unlimited fine, supply and production up to life and unlimited fine.
Even for more mundane things like road traffic laws, if they were fully enforced then the only people with licenses would be those who didn’t drive.
(And are your memes fully licensed from the original copyright holder?)
[0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
They were doing that exact thing to selected citizens. So did FBI for alleged communists.
Bugging apartments, planting their own spies, opening up private letters, etc.
Yup, they wouldn't even dream about that magnitude.
It's the difference between being able to point a gun at a few inconvenient people, and being able to point it at everybody, all the time. Eventually the temptation presented by this kind of power and control over people will intersect with some Erdogan or Lukashenko type with the finger on the trigger.
But that makes it worse, not better - those who believe in their ideology with such zeal are more likely to push it through to the extremes, no matter what.
Why is it always "them" vs "us"? NSA/CIA are doing probably a better job at global surveillance of everything and everyone, simply based on resources available to them. Every powerful enough government spies on the largest scale they can, because just letting someone else to spy on you and not spy yourself (if you can) would be infinitely foolish.
Even at local scale. If citizens could find a way to hold their president on short leash, such president would be more likely to listen to the citizens. But citizens don't have such powers, only presidents do, so they only have to listen to each other.
Similarly for KGB; I believe that standard practice was to recruit secret informants e.g. from every course group in universities, so any student activities would be fully covered and you could get a personal report about every student; for 100% of any trips abroad the group had an agent/informant or multiple within the group. So you'd have a small fraction (multiple percent?) of population actively involved in the monitoring, and a majority of people being at least occasionally monitored - as the archives later revealed, an average person should expect that your colleagues, friends and relatives will [have to] write reports on you (corroborated by the fact that any group might include two or more informants, so any omissions would be obvious and cause consequences for the false reporter) and note any expressions of anti-government sentiment.
The aim was to effectively keep a gun aimed at everyone, and they were somewhat successful in achieving that (or at least maintaining that belief) even without modern technologies.
The aim was to make everyone believe there may be a gun pointed at them even if there wasn't. While that was relatively effective do you know what is even more effective? Actually having a gun pointed at everyone.
Having 500k Stasi informants and spies over its 50 years of existence is a far cry from being able to effectively spy on everyone all the time. And informants are notoriously unreliable due to a whole host of human failings, not least among them being that the people want to gain favor or at least not antagonize the state.
The modern surveillance state would make you inform on yourself via every device or communication channel you use, and at all times, with some human/AI combination making sure very little if anything is missed.
But they couldn't do it to everyone. Now with computers they can. You might think 1984 was written as a warning, but the powers that be see it as an instruction manual.
In the past the EU passed a directive that required all ISPs to save what websites you visited. This was overturned years later, but it seems now they're trying again through a different angle.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
a lot of people in germany, basically do not care they thing they do not have anything to hide (which is probably right) but there are so many crimes which are just done in front of everybody and nobody did care (cum ex, wirecard, just to name some). it's like once the rich or politicans are involved they start to care.
Some people have been working on an interesting solution called StampChat which has a similar topology to email, but the messages are encrypted by default and the spam mitigation is done via sending tokens to the recipient (ala Hal Finney's RPoW) idea.
It's still a prototype, but there is one deployment over here: https://web.stampchat.io
The whitepaper on the protocol is here: https://www.stampchat.io/whitepaper.pdf
There's a faucet here if anyone is interested https://faucet.lotuslounge.org/
We're not doing an ICO or anything, happy to give out more tokens out.
I think spam and abuse are definitely significant problems.
The centralized systems are like medieval walled cities.
They exist because, for an average individual, there is no practical way to live outside their walls.
It's difficult to run your own email server. But, while the technical challenge may be difficult, the greater difficulty is in preventing your email server from becoming a bot in a spam network.
As far as I can tell, no EU organ has actually published any actual proposal or recommendation to introduce such mandatory screening as described in the OP.
My guess is that the actual proposal, when it comes, will not include industrywide mandatory screening or breaking end-to-end encryption.
Otherwise, my opinion is that this would be either impossible to enforce or the cost to do so would outweigh the benefits in a massive way.
Basically none of their voting base (young adults, mostly) has any idea about the origin of the party. They were lured to the party because it supports green and social statist politics.
Note: I don't think statism in itself is wrong, but I don't like the particular kind of state they're pushing for. I think their goals could be accomplished by supporting people more directly e. g. by supporting independent social organizations, which I think would be more in line with the original pirate ideas.
However I must say that their latest program (for the parliamentary elections) was acceptable to me. But they're nearly (4/200) out of the parliament now.
According to Wikipedia, the Pirates and Mayors group got 15.6% of the vote at the last election last month and has 37 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Czech_legislative_electio...
Is that not correct?
The coalition agreement aimed to resolve this issue but failed.
I think the Czech nuclear program is successful mostly thanks to Dana Drábová. Other countries need to find someone like her.
They would like to form their own group, but they don't have enough pirates elected from enough countries yet to qualify. So they're stuck with going with the best option.
Besides, as long as greens and pirates share the same goal ... the'll work out the rest. This way the greens may move away from the anti nuclear stance quicker.
I find "pro-" or "anti-" Brussels to be a false dichotomy. You can be _for_ the existence of the EU, but be critical of how it works, of the proposals coming from one of its institutions, and actively participate in improving the organisation.
Which is exactly what this MEP is doing.
Well, Marcel Kolaja, who was voted from the Czech Pirate Party to the european parliament certainly comments on these things - like on an earlier round for this in July:
https://european-pirateparty.eu/parliament-approves-chatcont...
He is in generally pretty active also in other important topics such as content filters or gatekeepers and other stuff:
https://european-pirateparty.eu/tag/marcel-kolaja/
As for the Pirate Party being "pro Brussels" it rather seem to to that they are ready to get involved in EU matters & possibly improve things.
Other parties anti-EU rhetoric is often not very constructive and populist, especially if the EU calls then on their shady deals.
Messaging and chat control - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28115343 - Aug 2021 (317 comments)
via pvg, prof-dr-ir (thanks!):
EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27759814 - July 2021 (11 comments)
European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727 - July 2021 (415 comments)
Indiscriminate messaging and chatcontrol: Last chance to protest - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736435 - July 2021 (104 comments)
IT companies warn in open letter: EU wants to ban encryption - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26825653 - April 2021 (217 comments)
Others?
for a second I thought got one heckin chonker of a promotion
We need P2P to come back and fast and make this hard to impossible to do.
People with knowledge and resources can and should host their own email and IM servers, on their own hardware, on their own properties.
Want my emails or IMs? Get a warrant to enter my property physically and try to decrypt my disks.
So as an American, are there any Euros that can enlighten me on whether or not there remain any procedural hurdles left for this to clear? Or is this being implemented in Signal as we speak?
https://european-pirateparty.eu/parliament-approves-chatcont...
1. If Signal does implement something like this, are they under gag orders so wouldn't be able to inform users?
2. What if they simply don't comply? So long as they don't have an office in the EU, is there anything that could be done? Users could just side-load.
Signal would be banned from European appstores/IPs.
> Users could just side-load.
Yes. But that can be illegal. And is an option for only a small part of the population.
How could side-loading be illegal? It's just software.
How would the state prevent vpns or tor users from connecting to Signal servers?
More importantly, what if users just use pgp in emails, etc.?
This is all just to catch people who don't know how the technology works.
Lawmakers have no problem making software illegal [1].
> How would the state prevent vpns or tor users from connecting to Signal servers?
They don’t have to prevent a 100%. They may just decide to police and punish.
> More importantly, what if users just use pgp in emails, etc.?
The same stupid arguments about lawful access (=back doors) [2] come up again and again. But that does not ensure it won’t become law some day. If users continue to use secure tools above policing and punishing applies.
[1] https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber5-11germany-bans-hac...
I would gladly take on the state to fight for the right to encrypt, but I'm American so I do understand my culture significantly impacts that perspective.
For example, in UK, you can be compelled to surrender your encryption keys to the court. Refusal to comply could result in a prison term of up to 5 years (if the government claims that child porn or "national security" is involved; 2 years otherwise). If you were given that choice, would you fight? Especially knowing that the courts have consistently favored the government on surveillance in the past?
I understand that is not a widely held view.
A government could start by demanding that all smartphones sold in their territory disallow side-loading. That's obviously already the case for iPhones, and it would be a small "security update" to Android phones to prevent side-loading.
As apps can detect which firmware version your phone is running, and whether the phone has been rooted, it's possible for phones to send cryptographically secured attestations to a government server that it is compliant with this new rule. Mobile networks can then block the IMEI numbers of phones which have side-loaded apps, or at least limit them to only sending/receiving calls and texts.
That won't stop people using these chat services on laptops, for example, but within a few years it will be feasible to enforce a similar "trusted platform" condition on those too.
I would guess not. At least if you mean gag-orders as used in the US by NSA etc.
That's because this would be a law, and not a "friendly favor" asked for by the police. A law is at least under public scrutiny in contrast to fisa orders etc.
Another question is whether EU police already is issuing gag based surveillance orders today. I'd like to know the answer to that too.
The fight is not over, and resisting legislation like this in the past has provided results. I am hopeful.
and if they don't get it through this parliament they'll wait until the next one, and so on
and once it's passed: the parliament has no ability to alter or undo it
The article in your link ("Parliament approves chatcontrol") is also misleading. What was actually passed in July 2021 was a temporary 3-year restoration of pre-Dec-2020 rules that allow service providers to voluntarily scan for child abuse (news release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IP... , actual legal text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...). Dec 2020 privacy law changes would have otherwise prohibited voluntary scanning.
Considering how it is currently not very popular, I don't have high hopes that this video will last longer than it could be had it been posted on youtube. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction.
[1] - https://www.vultr.com/apps/nextcloud
[2] - https://www.linode.com/marketplace/apps/linode/nextcloud/
[1] - https://help.nextcloud.com/t/postfix-configuration/45748
Instead of talking about pedophiles, they should talk about racists and far right extremists using chat platforms, that would rally a big part of the press in support:
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Telegram: why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> Neo-Nazi groups use Instagram to recruit young people, warns Hope Not Hate
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/22/neo-nazi-group...
> How far right uses video games and tech to lure and radicalise teenage recruits
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/how-far-right-...
> Revealed: walkie-talkie app Zello hosted far-right groups who stormed Capitol
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/zello-app-us...
> The UK social media platform where neo-Nazis can view terror atrocities
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/the-uk-soci...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> The Cybersecurity 202: Extremists flocking to encrypted apps could restart debate over law enforcement access
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/13/cybersecu...
It's not been proposed, it's not being voted on, and it's not coming into force any time soon.
There are two things that have been proposed:
1. Adding a temporary exemption ('derogation') within privacy regulations to ensure online service providers can scan user data for CSAM if the provider so chooses without being in breach of GDPR. In the US and elsewhere, providers who wish to do were already doing this. This just provides a quick fix to avoid GDPR from shutting down existing service provider's own child protection programs. More details: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-promo...
2. Asking the EU Commission to investigate and analyze possible proposals for longer-term legislative solutions to this issue, by defining more clearly what service providers options and obligations are with regard to CSAM, and proposing various other ways the EU could protect children from abuse offline & online.
The EU's summary of the overall process is at https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/internal-security... (even more detail here: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-07/20200...). The details of the derogation regulations are at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-promo..., and there's more detail on the commission's ongoing analysis to eventually define proposals here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
One _possibility_ is that the commission could propose legislation mandating scanning of all messages and AI to automatically search for grooming. Some parts of that legislative option are mentioned as ideas to be considered (see the "Inception impact assessment" PDF in the commissions analysis) alongside various other options. There's nothing suggesting that this is the leading option though. That PDF also makes detailed note of privacy concerns as topics to consider too, and the resulting public consultation on that specific assessment received a huge amount of feedback against such measures.
So far, there is no proposed legislation like what's described in this video. If there were, it's likely that there would be major public outcry, and there is no indication that it would pass.
It's possible the commission could propose this, but it's also very plausible that the commission proposes some other framework of obligations, which makes it clear when and how online services must scan for CSAM, without mandating searching of all private communications. For example, mandating CSAM scanning of publicly accessible content online, and mandating that private message providers include "report this message" tools to allow users to report otherwise inaccessible content by themselves.
Of course, there is always the possibility that the EU could veer away from privacy protections into being a totalitarian state, sure, but nobody is currently proposing legislation along those lines. There's a wide spectrum of reasonable possibilities on the table here that would be genuine improvements. There's no need to panic about the imminent death of privacy quite yet.
15 years ago the EU made this into law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
This eventually didn't hold up in court, but it pretty much shows where the Union has been on the privacy scale right from the start when it comes to governments doing the snooping.
I would urge people to read the linked texts in your comment. I think they will see that it is entirely possible to follow the (imperfect) thought process of the EU Commission from these primary sources, since they are quite readable.
Any idea why the Breyer makes it sound like this is something which is coming though? Or why he's even talking about it?
It's difficult, because I too would be very concerned about this issue, once there's actually a proposal to object to! I'm entirely on their side on this issue, if reality were as presented here, but campaigning against a strawman that might never be proposed whilst disingenuously implying that it's imminent feels a lot like fearmongering to me.
Frustratingly, it would be quite possible & useful to campaign against this with nuance instead: "the commission is considering proposals to better fight CSAM - have your say, make suggestions & help define tech solutions to do this while preserving privacy", rather than "the EU is going to destroy all privacy ASAP". And it's not like we're short on other genuine issues to campaign on either.
2. Intercept and scan all civilian communication
3. ???
4. Yellowstone explodes
Messaging and chat control - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28115343 - Aug 2021 (317 comments)
But something about speaking to a camera seems to make it easier for people to express their thoughts in a digestible way. I tend to find that, for many topics, some random 5-10 minute video of a person talking to the camera will tend to be more informative than some random 5-10 paragraph article.
More info: https://www.chatcontrol.eu
If we could force somehow politicians to count on the same exact public exposure, from rallies to apparently trivial things such as tweets, that would possibly change something, but to me a similar scenario in this universe is near science fiction.
once the law is passed future parliaments can't modify or repeal it
and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect governments who then delegate to the commission, it's strange if the commission continues to propose regulations that are unpopular.
the commission can wait for a parliament that will pass its legislation
and once it's passed: that's it, future parliaments can do nothing about it
and if a member state wants it gone: it has to leave the EU entirely
and politically the commission is the same as it has always been (by design)
the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is that the member governments want to reign in the Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of "success".)
CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse... :/
What are you basing this on? The President of the Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there was no single majority party after the election, it's not completely surprising that backroom deals led to a different president than the desire of the party holding the most seats.
> The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency
While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did report on the 2019 election as if the above were consensus. It is my understanding that this was not the case in all EU countries.
It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will let you', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What can you say to them?
I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that shares both of these views.
In other words the current system will always boil down to choosing between bad options that will screw you over some way or another. I wish there was an alternative...
Although for direct democracy to be effective you would need a highly educated and politically engaged population
Maybe some Swiss can clarify why their population is so anti-vax, as it boggles my mind.
My point is not to say that such a direct democratic system wouldn't be effective, I'm just saying that correlation != causation, as in the case of Switzerland, I attribute its success as a country more to it being a neutral banking heaven for the world elite for decades and being in a very fortunate geo-political location that was spared the destruction of war which helped it attract tons of foreign talent and capital, rather than to its direct democratic system and domestic educated population. I could also be wrong of course.
[1] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
[2] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
Portugal is almost 100% vaccinated, Switzerland is at 64% which puts it closer to the former comunist EU members like Slovakia.
That's a massive difference, and to me, says something about the country's population/society.
In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make someone uneducated. Switzerland has some of the best schools and universities in the world. In 2018, 44% of 25-64 year-olds had completed a tertiary qualification in Switzerland, compared to 39% on average across OECD countries. [1]
[1] https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019...
Which misinformation did I spread?
>Switzerland is 63.7% vaccinated.
Which I said I find it to be very low in comparison to countries like Spain and Portugal where the rate is nearly 100% so having only 64% points to a large number of anti-vaxers similar to Eastern Europe.
>In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make someone uneducated.
No? Then what does it make the other 36% who refuse to get vaccinated? En-masse refusal of a potentially life saving vaccine that will help end the pandemic doesn't really scream intelligence and education, does it?
you are also making assumptions that those who aren't yet vaccinated are anti-vax, which again isn't always the case they may have their own reasons for delaying or perhaps are perfectly fine with vaccines in general but distrust this particular one for whatever reason.
A person can be educated person can still be an unreasonable one.
So what does the swiss population know that the scientific and medical communities don't?
Democracy requires compromise. There will never be a party that perfectly matches your views. You prioritize the ones you care about, find common ground and help those who will advance your interests.
I don't like uneducated voters.
The problem is, that we (as in, "not the rich and powerful") are not playing the game of democracy correctly.
Protesting to stop a bill passing is the "you f-ed up, so you're panicking, and maybe you'll stop it" move. If it keeps happening, it just means you did not learn your lesson.
What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them. Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.
Maybe we should actively fight against the existence of lobby groups. The lobby groups in most cases push for legislation that is good for them (companies) and not for the people.
And it's not inherently a problem. It's not even slanted against the interests of the population. The only reason we have a problem is because "the rich and powerful" understand that this is how democracy works and everyone else ... wishes it was different.
The solution to just about all our problems is simple: stop wanting democracy to be something it isn't and start "using" it correctly - namely, realize that to HAVE power you need to SPEND money. And no, taxes ain't it.
The great thing is that "the people's" money is way more effective (i.e. it's more expansive to get politicians to do immoral acts than it is for them to do moral acts). Plus, we have more of it (10EUR/USD per month times the entire population is ... a lot of money).
We just have to start.
Cite any reputable social science that says that democracy is an actual thing implemented in liberal democracies. Then we can take it from there.
> actually, funding lobbying efforts.
Billionaires and multi-millionaires will outspend your gofundme lobbying. It’s simple economics.
And no, the rich can't outspend the population, if the population realized what's happening.
Not only is 10USD/EUR per month times the entire population just an incredible amount of money ... it's way more effective.
Most damage from lobby happens because corporate lobbyist are the only ones there. Just one publicly funded lobbyist there to remind the decisions makers of what is right and prevent their ability to rationalize would make an incredible difference.
But you need to pay that person.
I don’t even know what that means.
Seems that you have no answers.
> Not only is 10USD/EUR per month times the entire population just an incredible amount of money ... it's way more effective.
That’s about 3B USD a month for the entire US population. Not a small amount but the political system is absolutely flush with money.
Plus you need to organize hundreds of millions of people and convince them to spend it towards one cause/pool. Which is orders of magnitude (as we like to say) harder than the billionaire class loosely organizing togheter.
(Not to mention that you have to keep out grifters etc...)
Not to mention many people can’t afford those kinds of “just two starbucks a month” recurring expenses that HN readers scoff at.
> Most damage from lobby happens because corporate lobbyist are the only ones there. Just one publicly funded lobbyist there to remind the decisions makers of what is right and prevent their ability to rationalize would make an incredible difference.
The keywords “right” and “rationalize” tells me that you are idealizing. The decision-makers don’t care about what’s right; they care about money and power. And if they do start to care about what is “right” then they will be replaced with someone else.
The decision makers need money to stay in power. In turn they turn to the biggest pockets. Predictable outcomes.
https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/23/how-a-rapper-s-arrest-in...
Why do you think freedom is made by the government and not the peoples?
And yes, of course, it's a law in Spain - that's the point of this conversation, that such laws exist (or can be introduced), and then selectively enforced against those the government wants to target for whatever reason, even in an ostensibly-liberal democracy.
Let me give you another example. In Russia, there was an "anti-extremism" law passed a few years ago that made it a crime to make public statements that "foment hatred or enmity against identifiable social groups". I can think of quite a few Western progressives who would probably cheer something like that as written. Only it turns out that e.g. police is an "identifiable social group", too, and so are members of the parliament!
The government that replaced it, did so on the promise of democracy and liberalism. It took less than 10 years for that all to go down the drain.
And then we've all seen 9/11 and what happened in liberal democracies after that, when various far-reaching anti-terrorism legislation was rushed through, and then routinely used by law enforcement in completely unrelated matters.
This entire argument - that Western governments are somehow exempt from the curse of corrupting power, and therefore letting them centralize more and more is not a problem - has already been disproven experimentally.
Realistically, targeted chat grooming on a major platform does end with responsibility over the platform. If the system is BS then it should be trivial to get the chat of any of the politicians involved in approving this. But from the past proposals, it doesn't look like that is "too trivial".
While technical folks think the tech world is untouchable by laws the legislative folks think everything is "perfectly" amenable to legislation and of course they're both wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The most likely end result is that messaging for minors might have the monitoring (but remember Google, FB, etc already do this in a way). And of course even if it passes this is amenable to ECJ appeals, etc.