Radan Kanev, Ivaylo Valchev and Christian Vigenin answered the e-mail about chat control, here are the answers

I was impressed that I was one of the few received answers from our MPs in the EP and I would like to share their opinion on the issue with you.

I wrote twice through the platform and because I did not receive an answer, I decided to write to them that even automatic otogor is a lot for their constituents. Then the three answered above. To date, these are the only answers. I agree with them that the whole thing looks like a spam attack, but even that was not said by them in a media, or at least I have not heard. You can correct me if I’m wrong.

Radan Kanev replied first the following:

"Unfortunately, the topic of CSAM Council Discussions has become a spam attack on our mail. In these, all -in -law, most letters are also impossible and pointless, insofar as they are obviously automatically generated. Many times I have shared that spam-attacks are the easiest way to harm a good cause… In essence-the EP has already voted on CSAM and with a huge majority has accepted a rather reasonable and balanced position that reflects your anxieties. Currently, discussions are being held between the governments in the EU Council, which is where the Danish Presidency of the Council has made the specific proposal, which provokes justified fears and objections. It is good to put pressure on our government now, because it will vote on the council. The EP will again have a role only after the end of the interinstitutional negotiations (the so -called “trialogues”) when it will vote on whether it approves their result. My commitment is that even then I will not support a proposal that essentially violates the secret of correspondence, which is a fundamental human right.

Greeting"

Ivaylo Valchev writes:

"My opinion on the subject largely coincides with all the anxiety expressed. For me, the freedom of expression and privacy of personal communications are above all. I have expressed this position and expressing it, it will be reflected in all possible debates and votes on this one – and other similar – questions. Perhaps, if you follow in detail my work, you will know that I have repeatedly talked about the topic and that – summarize the thesis that more regulations do not automatically mean more security, and that freedom of belief and expression is a fundamental right that is not subject to discussion, let alone inserting in frames. As for your remark “It seems even to an automatic answer for your voters …”, I will only note that your email for the control of chats is just one of the already at least one thousand I have received on me on this issue – almost all of them with absolutely equally copy/pest content, automatically generated, automatically translated, often even with an inaccurate name of the recipient. And this somehow does not encourage a person to respond to any such letter – even me who hold these things 🙂 I have tried to explain to the defenders of various causes that such copywriting avalanches from the same letters rarely carry the desired effect, but – obviously – people choose easier. Also, it is a pretty bad tone for me to answer automatic emails. So – I accept for information every letter, I read everything in my mail and answer every time I am aware that I see more than “copy -pest -send to all” :)) I wish you a nice day and be sure that I and the political parties and groups that I represent – as well as the ecr in the European parliament regulations and interventions.

With respect, Ivaylo Valchev"

And lastly, Mr. Vigenin’s answer, who has no address to me, I deleted them for my name.

"Thank you for the exhaustive exhibition and the shared arguments regarding the CSAM proposal (and in particular Chat Control).

I fully share your concerns – the European Parliament also expressed such a position, emphasizing the serious violations of the right to inviolability, the risks to the security and the unreliability of the technical solutions in the proposed regulation.

You can get acquainted with the EP position here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0364_BG.html

With respect,

Christian Vigenin"