Web3 alternatives could benefit from EU’s chat control law, experts reveal

TL;DR Breakdown

• Privacy experts have revealed that the new EU Chat Control law could push users to explore Web3 alternatives.
• Experts claim that the law could see public trust in traditional messaging platforms erode.
• Germany’s decision remains important to the legislation.

Privacy experts have mentioned that Web3 alternatives could be the most beneficial entities as European Union lawmakers near a decision on the “Chat Control” law. According to the experts, the law could break public trust in digital communications, pushing users towards Web3 platforms.

At the center of the debate is the European Union’s proposed regulation to prevent and combat the sharing of illegal materials. Under the law, platforms will be required to scan private messages for these kinds of content before they are encrypted. However, critics have noted that this will effectively create a backdoor into the encrypted system, contradicting the European Union’s claims of committing to privacy laws.

Experts highlight Web3 as the better alternative

According to Hans Rempel, co-founder and CEO of Diode, the proposal is a dangerous overreach. “Giving an inherently corruptible entity nearly unlimited visibility into the private lives of individuals is incompatible with an honest value statement of digital privacy,” he added. He also claimed that it could set a dangerous precedent from a legal and technological aspect. “There are no guarantees,” Rempel added when asked if the tools could be misused. “Over 10% of all data breaches occur in government systems,” he warned.

Elisende Fabrega, general counsel at Brickken, mentioned that the law looks too difficult to justify under the existing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. She highlighted Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantee the confidentiality of communications and protection of personal data. “Client-side scanning would enable the monitoring of content on user devices before transmission, including in cases where there is no indication of unlawful activity,” she said.

The erosion of truth in traditional messaging platforms could lead users to explore decentralized Web3 alternatives, platforms that are designed to protect user data through encryption by default. “Web3’s privacy battle cry is ‘Not your keys, not your data,’” Rempel said. “This is true self-custody for data,” he added, noting that the end-user maintains sovereignty over their information from “cradle to grave.”

Germany set to make an integral decision

Fabrega also raised concerns about the broader impact of the surveillance and its effect on public trust. “Encryption is not only a technical feature, it is a promise to users that their private communications will remain confidential,” she said. Echoing Rempel’s sentiment, Fabrega said, “privacy-conscious users will increasingly explore decentralized Web3 alternatives” if Chat Control is passed. She also warned that the move could cause fragmentation in the European digital market, weakening the EU’s ability to shape international norms on privacy.

Since the beginning of chatter about the Chat Control laws, several countries have held on to different views, pulling their weight behind the one they consider is best for the continent. As it stands, about 15 countries have signalled support for the law, including Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland, Latvia, and some others. On the other hand, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia have opposed the law.

Meanwhile, the ball rests in Germany’s court, as it remains the only country that is yet to take a final stance concerning the issue. While 15 EU countries already support the proposal, they fell short of the 65% population threshold required for passage. If Germany votes in favor, the legislation will pass, and if it abstains or opposes, it will fail. “We believe it to be low,” Rempel said of the likelihood of passage. “But it won’t be the last time that there is an attempt to subvert fundamental human rights in the name of safety.”