Applies the chat control also GOS

MontBlanc

Hi,
Will the newly passed chat control also applie on GOS. Do it need to be implemented into it?

DeletedUser1015

No. Do you even know what was approved now? A temporary exception from EU privacy rules that permits online platforms to voluntarily scan for known child sexual abuse material (CSAM) was extended. This is not the 'big' Chat Control proposal, which is still under debate and probably will be for years to come. The recent vote relates only to the temporary, voluntary framework. It does not mandate scanning, does not require the breaking of end-to-end encryption, and does not give governments direct access to private messages. GOS does not have to "implement" anything (and if they would, how could EU regulation enforce this?). Just use trustworthy apps for messaging with proper E2E encryption and a decent privacy policy.

MontBlanc

DeletedUser1015 Oh, I see. I've lost track of which part of the chat regulation is currently being discussed. But that's why I'm asking. But if the other part of this law—the worse part—gets passed, Graphen OS won't be affected by it, right? Did I understand that correctly?

MontBlanc

DeletedUser1015 Which E2E chat platforms would you recommend?

Kamika242

MontBlanc Which E2E chat platforms would you recommend?

SimpleX
Threema-Libre
Signal (FOSS versions of Molly or Tw-Hx)

My opinion.
The order is random.

For further information:

https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html

DeletedUser1015

MontBlanc GrapheneOS is an OS. As far as I know, OS level scanning is not and has never been a part of any of the (many) EU Chat Control proposals. And even if it was, it is hard to imagine how this would legally work.

router99

DeletedUser1015 And even if it was, it is hard to imagine how this would legally work

The EU will find a way.

userofgos

MontBlanc there's a few thread's relevant to this:

Carrousel7956

MontBlanc

Molly / Signal is the best balance of users, usability, and privacy.
SimpleX is the technical King, but you're not gonna find anyone IRL using it. Worse but not terrible usability.
WhatsApp is just Signal but worse metadata, more bloated, closed source, made by one of the worst companies for privacy in the world, but with way more users.
I can't recommend iMessage because of the effective encryption backdoor with iCloud backup being non-e2ee by default.
I haven't used e2ee RCS because all my contacts are on Signal, but it sounds a little suspicious that it's opportunistic and not always-on. This one also has advantages of more users.

MontBlanc

Carrousel7956 OK, thanks. Can someone explain to me how Simple X works because I'm interested.

Carrousel7956

MontBlanc

I don't understand it enough to explain. What I understand is that the queues and relays have identifiers, but users do not. So it eliminates metadata. There's also a bunch of security features. There's also the feature message padding which makes all messages sent 16 KB to defend against traffic analysis.

It's confusing and I don't understand it.

Read the website to get correct info:

https://simplex.chat/messaging/

de0u

Carrousel7956 SimpleX is the technical King [...]

How is that known?

In 2024 SimpleX planned to have an audit in 2025 (source). It does not appear that occurred. At present the SimpleX site says "We have scheduled implementation security assessment for June 2026" (source), but we are well into July 2026.

The SimpleX goals are attractive, but personally I would not describe the SimpleX status as "technical king" given the current evidence.

Carrousel7956

de0u I asked them about the June 2026 timing for the audit. I'll reply here with their response.

They did do this, but I don't think that's the official thing they claimed: https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/06/22/introducing-patch-the-planet/

Carrousel7956

de0u Sure, technical king is a subjective statement. It totally depends on your goals. I don't think there's a messenger that is as effective at eliminating metadata as SimpleX.

Carrousel7956

They said the audit is underway right now.

dln949

Carrousel7956
@MontBlanc

My layman's explanation of simplex to myself: SimpleX creates a unique identifier for your side of each conversation, instead of a common and fixed unique identifier for you that is used in all your conversations with all people.

In many apps, you are identified - say, by your phone number - and that is the identifier that matters, and it is the same for all your conversations with anyone in those apps.

In SimpleX, say you are interested in chatting with person X. SimpleX will give you identifier 1234, and the other person 5678. Once you've exchanged those identifiers with each other, you two can converse on SimpleX - you will be conversing with 5678 (which you can label with a meaningful name), and person X will be conversing with 1234. You can then also create an additional conversation in SimpleX with that same person X, Simplex will give you identifier 4321, and that same other person X 8765, and then once you two have exchanged those identifiers with each other, you two can hold that conversation in SimpleX using those two new identifiers, alongside and separate from your first conversation with that same person X. So you and person X are never identified, in SimpleX all that exists are these unique, random, meaningless identifiers. Then, if you wish to chat with person Y, SimpleX will give you ID 5544, and person Y 2233, and once you exchange these identifiers 5544 (you) and 2233 (person Y) can chat in SImpleX. Of course, you don't have to set up multiple separate conversations with each person if you do not want to, you can stick to just one conversation per person if you wish. And, Yes, exchanging the identifiers with each other seems to be kind of a pain. But your identity is never revealed, there is no "You" in SimpleX. Instead, each one of your conversations gets a random, unique, meaningless identifier. SimpleX is built around the individual conversation (which can encompass any and many topics), not based on the person. And everything is encrypted, I believe each conversation involves the exchange of keys unique to that particular conversation.

Well, this is how I, a non expert person who does not use simpleX, understand it in my simple mind. I hope I don't have this all wrong, I trust someone here will correct me if I am wrong.

tifus

Carrousel7956

Innovative SimpleX network design removed the need for persistent user identification of users, and many users see it as an unsolvable dilemma - if we cannot identify the users, then we cannot restrict their actions.

But it is not true. In the same way we already impose restriction on the sent file size, limiting it to 1gb only on the client-side, we can restrict any user actions on the client side, without having any form of user identification, and without knowing how many users were blocked - we would only know how many blocking actions we applied, but we would not have any information about whether they were applied to one or to many users, in the same way as we don't know whether multiple messaging queues are controlled by one or by multiple users.

The usual counter-argument is that this can be easily circumvented, because the code is open-source, and the users can modify it, so this approach won't work. While this argument premise is correct, the conclusion that this solution won't be effective is incorrect for two reasons:

most users are either unable or unwilling to invest time into modifying code. This fact alone makes this solution effective in absolute majority of cases.

any restriction on communication can be applied both on sending and on receiving client, without the need to identify either of these clients. We already do it with 1gb file restriction - e.g., even if file sender modifies their client to allow sending larger files, most of the recipients won't be able to receive this file anyway, as their clients also restrict the size of file that can be received to 1gb.
source

More about Simplex Chat: