namesyoushouldknow.lol
Tracking which Members of the European Parliament voted for Chat Control.
Everyone in the main index voted FOR at least one full text that authorises or extends Chat Control. Use the stance filter to see anti-rejection votes, opponents, and abstainers. New here? What is this about?
What counts as support: a FOR vote on a full authorising or extension text. Narrowed or safeguarded versions never count. Nothing else qualifies, including the two 9 July 2026 votes against rejection. Full rules in the methodology.
Automated data. This page is built by automatically scraping and classifying public vote records, and errors can happen at any step. Double-check every entry against the linked official sources before relying on it or publishing it. How you use this information is your responsibility. Not an official Parliament resource.
ContextWhat these votes are about.
“Chat Control” is the nickname for EU rules about scanning private messages for child sexual abuse material.
Chat Control 1.0. A temporary exception to EU privacy law that lets providers scan messages voluntarily (Regulation 2021/1232). The votes in the main index created or extended it. The 2026 extension excludes end-to-end encrypted messages.
Chat Control 2.0. A separate draft law that would make scanning mandatory. It is not law, and no vote here counts as support for it.
The dispute. Supporters say scanning finds abuse at scale. Opponents call it mass surveillance that cannot work on encrypted services without breaking the encryption. This site takes no side; it records votes.
Audited vote-by-vote index
Full four-way positions for 11 plenary roll calls.
Member states
Select a flag to filter the index and open that country’s complete record, including opponents. Select it again to clear.MethodologyStructured rules, not word matching.
Inclusion. Only a FOR vote on a final text or Council deal that authorises or extends the regime qualifies.
Safeguards. Votes for restrictions, shorter durations, encryption protections, or technical fixes never count.
Completely for versus narrowed. Completely for means at least one FOR vote on a full authorising or extension text: the 2021 regulation and the 2024 first-extension deals. For narrowed texts only means the member’s affirmative votes were solely on safeguarded or narrowed packages, such as the March 2026 versions or committee compromise reports. Narrowed-text votes are shown as their own stance and never qualify for the main index.
Rejection motions. FOR rejection is opposition. AGAINST rejection never counts as support: on 9 July 2026 the first motion failed only on the 360-vote threshold (314 to 276) and the defeat of the second sent Parliament’s amended text to the Council, which must still approve it.
The 2026 stance rule. At second reading Parliament casts no affirmative final vote: the text is adopted unless a rejection motion succeeds. A rule system therefore classifies each member’s full 2026 record. 2026: clearly pro means all three of: voted FOR an extension text (11 or 26 March), acted to advance or protect it (FOR the 7 July urgency or AGAINST any 2026 rejection motion), and never voted against it (never FOR a rejection motion, never AGAINST an extension text). 2026: enabled passage means no FOR vote on any extension text, but FOR urgency and AGAINST rejection on 9 July, again with no contrary vote. Members with signals in both directions get no tag. Neither tag counts toward the main index: the 2026 texts were narrowed and exclude end-to-end encrypted messages, and the Council has not yet approved the extension, so the tags prove a consistent 2026 record for extending the regime in its limited form, nothing more.
Limited texts. Voting AGAINST a safeguarded text is recorded separately and not counted as opposition; the member may have opposed the safeguards, not the regime.
Sources. Plenary entries link to their exact HowTheyVote roll-call pages. Committees publish only one side of each vote, so missing committee counter-votes prove nothing. The index follows the announced roll call, not later corrections of intent.
Read the complete record.
Independence. This is an independent public-record index. It is not an official European Parliament publication, and it has no connection to any person or political group listed here.
Appearance. A person appears in the main index because they cast at least one qualifying support vote under the rules above. That fact alone does not tell you why they voted that way, whether they backed every version of the law, or what their position is today.
Accuracy and responsibility. The data here is scraped and classified automatically, and errors can happen at any step. Public records can also change or be corrected after the fact. Before you publish or act on anything from this page, open the linked official source for that vote and check it yourself. Responsibility for how you use or publish this information is yours alone.
Mirror this site
This page is fully self-contained, data and rules included. The button downloads the latest public copy, or the copy already open if the site is unreachable.