Possibly, but given Mikael's already extensive technical background article, said open letter would need to be shorter and can still link to that post.
I missed that exception. I'm curious how that would work in practice, particularly with XMPP and Matrix. On 23 September 2025 17:01:08 CEST, "Arne-Brün" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, maybe I misread something since I'm in a hurry today but shouldn't we as >the XSF write an open letter? > >For me it looks like the EU wants more control, restrictions and laws instead >of really solving problems and this for the costs of many innocent people. >Especially since government members are excluded it feels like a move to a >very unhealthy system. > >Greetings, > >Arne > >Am 23. September 2025 16:28:19 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer <[email protected]>: >>Thanks again Michaël for writing this. I fully agree that this legislation is >>misguided, counter-productive and actively harmful, even just on technical >>grounds. I support referencing the post already published over at Process >>One. >> >>Gonzalo, I think the blog post should not copy the text wholesale, but >>instead reference it by link and provide context from the perspective of a >>standards organization like ours. >> >>Cheers, >> >>ralphm >> >> >>On 23 September 2025 15:59:20 CEST, Gonzalo Raul Nemmi <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>> >>>Dear Mickaël and Emus: >>> >>>As the author of the referenced PR, I think it goes without saying that I >>>agree >>>with Mickaël's argument, even if personally and as a lawyer I may have a more >>>pessimistic and darker view about the most likely outcome of a piece of >>>legislation of this nature. >>> >>>As I have come to learn way back at the university and over my 20+ years of >>>experience as a lawyer, nothing good ever came out from the truncation of >>>civil >>>liberties nor, like in this case, basic Human Rights like privacy (Universal >>>Declaration of Human Rights, article 12) or free speech ( see the Preamble of >>>the same document ), with complete disregard of how good the arguments used >>>as a >>>cause may have been. >>> >>>It is my understanding that, shall the 'Chat Control' proposal come to pass, >>>it >>>will have a direct and undeniable impact on the XSF and its main product: the >>>XMPP protocol ... and the whole ecosystem it sustains. >>> >>>With the impending voting so close on the horizon ( October 14th ), it >>>is my most humble opinion that this matter should be treated as soon as >>>possible by the relevant persons and with the due diligence it deserves. >>> >>>El Mon, 22 Sep 2025 21:41:21 +0200 "E.M." <[email protected]> escribió: >>>> Dear Mickaël, >>>> >>>> many thanks for reaching out and also many thanks for this article. >>>> >>>> I second what you state and formulate in this text. There are very >>>> strong statements, especially the quotes below. >>>> >>>> If the others agree, we could reference this in our blog. I believe this >>>> is important and we should even consider to forward this to relevant >>>> persons. One of our members already stepped ahead: >>>> https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1563 >>>> >>>> (Mickaël, I assume you are okay with this?) >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Eddie >>>> >>>> _________ >>>> * "The concern isn't about protecting illegal content, it's about >>>> protecting democratic discourse. Private conversations could become >>>> subject to monitoring based on shifting political definitions of harmful >>>> speech. What begins as child protection infrastructure could evolve into >>>> a tool for suppressing political opposition or monitoring dissenting >>>> opinions in private communications." >>> >>>And it will .. as studied in detail in Michel Foucault's "Discipline & >>>Punish". >>> >>>> * "The programmed death of European alternatives. This regulation >>>> creates a structural disadvantage for European communication services >>>> trying to build alternatives to US tech giants." >>>> >>>> * "The October 14th vote represents more than a policy choice about >>>> child protection. It's a decision about whether Europe will cripple its >>>> own communication infrastructure in pursuit of surveillance capabilities >>>> that won't work as promised." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22/09/2025 15:45, Mickaël Rémond wrote: >>>> > Hello, >>>> > >>>> > I tried to make a technical argument here: >>>> > https://www.process-one.net/blog/chat-control-2025/ >>>> > >>>> > Feel free to send me your feedback if you find any mistake or inaccuracy. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks ! >>>> > >>>> >>> >>>Thank you Mickaël for your article, and Emus for your prompt and diligent >>>reply >>>to Mickaël's call and my PR. >>> >>>Best regards >>>Gonzalo
