Europol said ChatControl doesn't go far enough; they want to retain data forever

Law Enforcement, Safety, and Distrust

• Strong current of hostility toward police: claims that law enforcement is power-hungry, rarely helps victims, arrives too late, and often prefers easy prosecutions (including of victims) over real investigation.
• Counterpoint: some commenters value living in “safe” countries and see law enforcement as necessary, but are answered with anecdotes of theft and burglary cases where police allegedly did nothing meaningful.
• Underlying fear: giving police more powers (like ChatControl) will not improve everyday safety but will increase abuse and overreach.

Europol, ChatControl, and the Surveillance State

• Many see Europol’s push for broad data access as a predictable bureaucratic power grab, drifting toward an EU-level NSA/FBI and a panopticon-like system.
• Some argue that “more data” is not automatically helpful: it creates noise, false leads, and investigative overload; others respond that modern AI could make large-scale analysis more feasible.
• Concern that terrorism/child protection narratives are being instrumentalized to normalize mass surveillance and long-term data retention.

Circumvention, Encryption, and Platform Control

• Discussion on how ChatControl targets “publicly available” messengers, incentivizing private, self-hosted, or P2P encrypted tools (XMPP/OMEMO, Matrix, Tox).
• Recognition that existing tech works but network effects and usability keep most people on mainstream apps.
• Fear that states may respond by locking down devices (app-store control, “trusted” signatures, ISP-level filtering), though others insist such controls will be circumvented as usual.

Politicians, Exemptions, and Transparency

• Strong sentiment that if surveillance is justified, it should apply first to elected officials, with lifelong retention and post-mortem disclosure.
• Anger that politicians are reportedly exempt from ChatControl while also accused of quietly deleting politically sensitive communications.
• Comparisons to Sweden’s radical transparency model provoke split reactions: some see it as working well; others find it intolerably invasive.

Legitimacy of Europol in Lawmaking

• One side: police (including Europol) should only enforce laws; lobbying for new powers undermines separation of powers and risks a “police state.”
• Other side: agencies must be allowed to express operational needs; democratic institutions still decide, so open debate is appropriate.
• Broader anxiety that the EU steadily expands competencies, with Europol potentially evolving into a true federal police.

Free Speech, Misinformation, and EU Regulation

• Disagreement over EU digital laws (DSA, etc.): some praise them alongside GDPR as necessary responses to disinformation, hate campaigns, and algorithm-driven radicalization.
• Others insist censorship is worse than misinformation and fuels the rise of populist and far-right parties; they argue for combating falsehoods with verifiable facts instead.

Credibility, Sources, and Activism

• Some argue the story is over-sensationalized, based on remarks from a single unnamed official; others respond that in such meetings, statements usually reflect institutional positions.
• References to investigative pieces and NGO reports about lobbying (e.g., from child-protection NGOs) and calls to support digital-rights groups and tools tracking national positions on ChatControl.