Why is this specifically relevant to Linux users?

Well,

• controlling end-to-end encrypted messages is only possible if either the keys/certificates are not secret (which is possible with TLS), or the software on the end-users device is not controlled any more by the user (but perhaps by law enforcement, or companies). This overturns the basis of any FLOSS software system where trust is based on transparency and user control.
• age verification will typically done by a form of attestation, a highly problematic concept. Again, this would require to run software on the users device which can't be controlled by him or her, which is deceptively called "trusted computing". (Technically, age verification could be done by other means, but this is not what these proposals aim for).
• in the world of public-key cryptography, which is what TLS , GnuPG, and most other modern systems are based in, encryption and digital signatures are nothing but two sides of the same coin: Who breaks encryption keys necessarily also breaks signature keys. This means it is not possible any more to sign software such as the Linux kernel, or Email clients, or browser packages. Or even banking apps or bootloaders for smart phones. Which means to give control away to the entities, groups or induviduals controlling these keys. Ironically, this will make computing lot less safe, and also undermine trust in communication networks, because communication where we can't be sure that the communicated symbols are genuine is for humans as worthless as the numbers on fake money. (As a corollary, it is also bad for business: All business is based on some amount of trust. Would you do important business with somebody if the only communication channel you have happens to be a messanger which is a compulsory liar?)

To sum up, this is a massive transfer of control.

I'm tired, boss.

Still can't fucking believe Denmark, my country, supports this. Yeah, it got revised thanks to Denmark, but it shouldn't be revised, it should be killed.

Everything good at Denmark? Why the fuck are your politicians pushing this into the EU council?

"outlaws anonymous communication" - This sends chills down me more than anything else I can remember. The people and organisations that benefit from this can't be trusted.

The only thing this does is control the law abiding public. Criminals are already breaking the law, and won't care. It is trivial to build an anonymous communication app. There will always be a workaround.

Anonymity, and free speak should be human rights.

Just a question from my ignorance: but is this really enforceable, outside of mainstream apps/services? What happens if someone creates a custom app relying on a custom sever and uses it only among few trusted people?

Ok, the website says that Germany already opposes it. Is that outdated or what? I don't want to spam MEPs if they already agree with me.

A populace in which it is politically safe to even float this suggestion is weak.

What is this Law Enforcement Working Party?
What is its relationship to the Council?

Besides the privacy implications : trying to protect children from grooming by forbidding specific apps, is like trying to treat chickenpox with concealer.

The real problem is that our society is even producing people who would groom a child.

But as always, politicians will try to "prevent" crime at the latest possible point in the action chain, instead of going back to the source.

I dont want to understate the fact that going to the source is extremely hard to do in many cases ; but maybe people would be less disinterested in politics, if we were actually choosing between different treatments - instead of different brands of concealer - to treat our various collective cases of chicken pox.

That's not a surprise, but that's sad!!

Let's continue to fight against!!!

they won't stop until they are deposed.

Un-fucking-believable 😡

Who do we need to kill?

Will this actually happen with 9 member states opposing? I thought they need every memeber state to support it?

So after opening the link I can select my concerns, insert my name and then send, right?

outlaws anonymous communication by requiring every citizen to verify their age before accessing a service

This is likely to be the case in practice, but technologically, it does not have to be the case.

If the age verifiers (which IMO should be the governments themselves[^1], but could also be a private third-party, as long as it's not the same as the social media company) only ever receive a blinded token representing the user, verify the user's age, and then the user brings that token back to the social media site, unblind it, and present them the signed token, there is no way for the age verifier to track which sites a person visits, and no way for the sites to have any detail about who their users are (other than what they already have).

[^1]: obviously, it actually shouldn't be anyone at all: parents should be put in charge of their own kids, and maybe given the tools with robust parental control software to handle it client-side. Government server-side age verification is just not a good option. But if we assume they're going to do that, we should at least discuss the way it could be done in the least-bad way.

How is the Union that gave its people the GDPR is the same Union pulling this?

Question for a the Fight Chat Control website: My country's primary language is not English, do I need to translate the e-mail?

if i'm not an eu citizen, what can i do to help

the way things are going Europeans are gonna have to start fleeing to China to get a semblance of free speech 🤣

Just sent it, thanks for the reminder. Sent it before too an one representative actually responded which was nice.