Yes, I'm really thankfull about Mickaëls article which should be linked. I thought about a more generell statement from the XSF. But then we would need to discuss what should be included.
Am 23. September 2025 17:14:21 MESZ schrieb Ralph Meijer <[email protected]>: >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
