Signal Warns Of Existential Risk to Privacy From Brussels’ Plans

Less than two weeks before the European Council vote on the controversial ‘Chat Control’ proposal, encrypted messaging service Signal has issued a stark warning to EU member states—particularly to Germany—over reports of a possible 180-degree shift in Berlin’s position.

In a letter signed by its president, Meredith Whittaker, the Signal Foundation warns that adopting the proposal would mean “the end of the right to privacy in Europe” and pose an “existential and catastrophic risk” to digital security.

Until now, Germany had been one of the firmest defenders against what critics call “preventive mass surveillance,” a policy promoted by Brussels under the pretext of combating child abuse. However, recent reports suggest that Friedrich Merz’s CDU may be preparing to drop its opposition, potentially paving the way for the measure’s approval—an outcome that would fundamentally alter the balance between security and liberty across the continent.

At the heart of the proposal—driven by Denmark and supported by France and Spain—lies the requirement for tech companies to install scanning systems on users’ devices to analyze messages, photos, and videos before they are encrypted. The stated aim is to detect illegal content, but for Signal and the cybersecurity community, this would amount to introducing an unprecedented mechanism of mass surveillance.

“Scanning every message—whether before or after encryption—undermines the very essence of end-to-end encryption,” Whittaker warns. “Instead of breaking Signal’s encryption protocol, attackers would only need to exploit the access already granted to the scanning system. It would be disastrous not only for citizens but also for national security.”

Even European intelligence agencies, the document notes, acknowledge that such a measure “would be catastrophic” for the protection of government data. The fact that state servers might be exempt from these requirements only highlights the core contradiction of the plan: a system presented as universal but which even its own proponents do not trust.

Signal’s letter appeals directly to Germany’s historical memory and to its role as a guardian of civil liberties in Europe. “Germany has long been a beacon of privacy protection, aware of the harm that mass surveillance can cause. To yield now would be a betrayal of that history,” writes Whittaker.

The warning goes beyond the moral dimension. In a context of high geopolitical tension and growing digital dependency, the letter describes the proposal as an “incomprehensible strategic blunder” that would endanger Europe’s critical infrastructures and open the door to attacks by hostile actors.

Signal also reiterates that its commitment to privacy is non-negotiable: if forced to introduce scanning capabilities into its applications, the company would rather leave the European market than compromise the security of its users. “Encryption works for everyone—or it works for no one. There is no middle ground,” Whittaker concludes.

The debate about Chat Control also highlights two competing visions of Europe. While France, Denmark, and Spain support the project, countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, and Poland oppose it outright. Eight member states—including Belgium, Germany, and Sweden—remain undecided. Germany’s final stance could therefore tip the balance once and for all.