If it were up to the governments of European member states, they would have finally made up their minds yesterday regarding the dramatic bill that undermines the confidentiality of our communications. It didn't get that far, partly because the Netherlands could not support the proposal. Where do we stand now? What is to come?

What preceded?

The governments of European Union member states, collectively 'the Council', have been negotiating a disastrous bill for two years now. The European Commission wants governments to be able to force platforms to watch all the messages of all their users, looking for criminal material. That means nothing but large-scale and untargeted surveillance, making encryption useless and undermining the confidentiality of communications. It says it is designed to protect children and young people, but the proposed measures harm everyone, including those children and young people. Justice and Security Department officials are all too willing. Yesterday, European justice ministers were to meet to agree to their own, no less disastrous, proposed amendment.

Where do we stand now?

But so it didn't come to that. Justice officials were called back last week, after widespread criticism from both outside and inside the governmentVictory! Dutch government does not support EU proposal undermining encryption. Agreeing would pose too great a risk to our country's digital defensibility, the Dutch secret service AIVD argued. And so, said the Minister of Justice and Security, the Netherlands cannot agree. The president of the Council felt the pinch: a majority had thus become unlikely. And so the proposal was no longer put to a vote during last week's preparatory consultations of diplomats. An important fact, because the outcome of that vote also determines the outcome of the vote at ministerial level. Those sat around the table yesterday, during the so-called JHA Council. Its agenda had already been modified: only progress would be reported. Although, with two years of deadlock, it might be better to speak of a lack of progress.

Meanwhile, the Dutch House of Representatives is not resting. Earlier this week, a motion was passedthat asks the government to "speak out persistently and unequivocally against future proposals that would allow for a detection order" and to come up with an alternative European proposal very soon. And good to realize: this motion was signed by all parties except the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the Christian parties.

What's to come?

No idea. Nobody knows. Hungary is president until the end of the year. In theory, they could come up with a new proposal until early December. Frankly, we don't see that happening anymore. The country was keen on getting the member states in line. They have now failed to do that. So would they have another surprise in the top hat now? Unlikely, but you never know. And of course, even the European Commission can still play political games. For example, there are rumors going around that it is offering one of the doubting member states a bait: in exchange for a positive vote, a more important post in the new Commission. We cannot do very much against that kind of political games. If there are no surprises, then further developments will depend mainly on the next President of the Council. That will be Poland. And they are fiercely opposed.

So what is Bits of Freedom doing?

Of course we are not laying low. As long as this proposal is not off the table, it is on it. The argument used by officials at the Ministry of Justice and Security, like the European Commissioner responsible, is: think of the children! But that is precisely why the Netherlands must commit to measures that are proven effective, legally sound and without collateral damage. This is what we are fighting for, both in front of and behind the scenes.