The division of Germany was accompanied by mass surveillance in East Germany and the suppression of opposition figures. That system of control didn’t just monitor criminals; it turned everyday citizens into suspects. If we’ve learned anything from German division, it’s that mass surveillance destroys freedom of speech and democracy itself. Today, Europe is discussing a proposal that risks repeating those same mistakes, the so-called Chat Control proposal, currently up for a vote in the EU Council. To anyone not familiar with IT and online security, the proposal might sound reasonable at first: force apps and services to scan for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on users’ devices – to keep children safe. But as harmless as it might sound, this AI scanning on personal devices would undermine end-to-end encryption, which would weaken security for everyone and make mass surveillance the new norm; and that at a scale that the East German government could only have dreamed of.

Interview on Chat Control

We’ve recently talked about the topic of Chat Control with Matthias Baenz, tax lawyer and long-time user of Tuta, who can brilliantly explain how we got into this situation, and why it is so bad. You can read a longer interview with Matthias Baenz here.

Question: Do you think politicians really understand the risks of Chat Control? After all, their own communications would no longer be secure either. Or do you think there will eventually be two systems - one for authorities and one for ordinary citizens?

Matthias Baenz: To be honest, I suspect that most politicians don’t really think this through. I’m not suggesting that they are incapable of doing so – intellectually, most of them are certainly perfectly capable of thinking this through. But they simply don’t do it. They often get stuck on the question: What is it we actually want to achieve?

The buzzword “combating terrorism” immediately comes to mind. I’ll use that as an example. It’s about internal security, external security, protecting the population, combating child abuse, all of these. These are undoubtedly very important issues. And these issues are, of course, recognized by politicians and classified as important – quite rightly so.

Question: So the first impulse is: the goal is honorable, so let’s do it.

Matthias Baenz: Exactly. That’s the first step in the thought process. And the second is often: the investigating authorities say they need it. They say that without these measures, we can no longer get to the perpetrators, the criminal gangs, or the people pulling the strings behind the scenes. And at this point - and I want to make it clear that I don’t want to lump everyone together - but at this point, many politicians say, “Okay, then we have no other choice.”

And that is precisely where the error in reasoning lies. From these two points – the legitimate concern and the demand of the authorities – one draws this one conclusion: we just have to do it this way. But this conclusion is wrong in several respects.

Question: In what way?

Matthias Baenz: Firstly, there are of course alternatives. There is no encryption that one couldn’t break or circumvent in some way. There are always possibilities, even if they are more difficult, more complex, or more targeted. But it’s not the case that accessing information is impossible just because you have strong encryption. There are technical and investigative tactics.

And the second thing - and this is actually the much bigger mistake - is that no one is thinking about the consequences of what they are doing. They simply brush the question aside. For me, this falls under the heading of “the end justifies the means.” In other words, “It’s so important right now, so it has to be done. We have no other choice.”

But this way of thinking is extremely dangerous. Because it means you are no longer aware of the far-reaching consequences – not only for citizens’ communications, but also for politicians themselves, for companies, for society as a whole. This awareness is often completely lacking because people are caught up in this logic of no alternative: “We have no other choice.”

Question: So it’s not malicious calculation, but rather a lack of foresight?

Matthias Baenz: That’s actually how I would describe it. It’s not malice. It’s a lack of consistency in thinking.

Technically doable - but a very stupid idea

In short, what Matthias Baenz – as well as other experts – are saying is that Chat Control is technically doable; but a very stupid idea. Yes, engineers could build client-side scanning into encrypted services. But doing so would turn every personal smartphone into a surveillance device, open to abuse and attack. Once encryption is weakened, it is weakened for everyone - not just for criminals.

Slippery slope to political abuse

We’ve seen from the example of East Germany that any surveillance tool can be easily turned against a country’s own citizens. This is maybe the biggest risk of Chat Control: Who can guarantee that this system – one there – will not be abused? Who can guarantee that political leaders will not use this system to monitor and oppress their opposition?

No one. Once the technical method is there to monitor citizens, it can be used against them.

That was exactly the case in East Germany: surveillance went far beyond “serious threats” and became a tool to monitor, intimidate, and silence political opponents.

On German Unity Day, this lesson must not be forgotten.

Warning from history

German Unity Day is a day to celebrate, but it’s also a day to remember. It is about remembering what we overcame: mass surveillance, fear, and the silencing of opposition. It is about remembering that freedom and privacy are fragile, and must be defended.

Chat Control threatens to take us backwards, not forwards.

Tuta’s message is clear: we will resist legal obligations to build surveillance into our services. This German Unity Day, let’s celebrate freedom, and remember why we must say “No” to Chat Control.