Child Safety or Mass Surveillance?

The EU’s long -standing battle for Chat Control returned to the center of attention, and this time it happens with an updated impulse.

In accordance with the President of the Danish Council, the proposal to demand automatic scanning of private chats, even those that are protected by through encryption, is roughened on the agenda. Its supporters claim that this is a decisive step to combat the spread of sexual violence against children on the Internet.

Not everyone agrees with this point of view. While some EU member states, such as France, Spain and Italy, decisively support the plan, others, such as Belgium, Austria and Poland, called it “monster who invades confidentiality.

Civil freedoms defenders warn that legislation can turn the most private spaces of Europe, from WhatsApp groups to encrypted emails, into monitoring zones.

At its core, the debate forces Europe to face a difficult question: is the chat control the necessary tool for protecting children in the digital era? Or is it only the beginning of mass observation hiding behind safety?

What is the chat control and why is it debatable

In essence, the EU Chat will require digital platforms to scan private communications of users for harmful content. This includes not only traditional social networks, but also encrypted messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and, possibly, email suppliers.

In accordance with the current proposal project, suppliers will have to implement scanning tools on the client side, which detect and marry suspects of sexual violence over children (CSAM) or grooming behavior before the messages are encrypted and sent.

Critics claim that to do this possible, the platforms will have to weaken through encryption (e2e)The function that only guarantees the sender and recipient can read the message.

The declared goal: Protection of children on the Internet

Chat control legislators emphasize that the goal is to Operation of combat children on a large scaleRequireing proactive scanning, they seek to stop the spread of CSAM and intervene in the conversations of care before harm.

Nevertheless, reality is not as simple as it seems: there are some noticeable risks and compromises.

Hidden cost: risk encryption

Security experts warn that the creation of backdor for one goal effectively creates reverse for everyone.

Compromising through encryption (E2EE) for safety creates a potential point of attack For hackers, hostile governments and cybercriminals to use vulnerabilities.

As Edward Snowden said:

“Affirming that you do not care about the right to solitude, because you have nothing to hide, it is no different from saying that you are not worried about freedom of speech, because you have nothing to say.”

The goals of the legislation can be noble, but the compromise, unfortunately, is significant. Trying to protect children, this risks destroying the digital foundations of confidentiality and security.

Europe is divided: who supports and who resists?

A The proposal to combat chat divided EuropeThe field on the one hand, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Lithuania and Latvia Support the proposal, claiming that this is an important step towards protecting children on the Internet.

These governments indirectly agreed that the need to act against the operation of children outweighs any fears about the creep of observation.

On the other side, Belgium, Czech Republic, Austria, the Netherlands and Poland They resolutely moved away, calling the proposal with dangerous re -equipment. In fact, Belgium even went so far as to describe it as “A monster that invades your confidentiality.“

Poland Resistance to the proposal is especially noteworthy. The country often encountered a criticism of retreat to the supremacy of the law and the resolution of state observation. His opposition here may seem like a sudden shift to support for civilian freedoms.

Nevertheless, instead, it may be discomfort that it will give the authority to monitor the EU institutions: the level is higher than their national control.

DenmarkCurrently, who owned the president of the rotating council has made a chat control with the main political priority. The proposal is consistent with the tradition of Denmark for high trust management, where citizens usually trust the fact that institutions act in good faith.

However, critics warn that this model does not necessarily work well in other EU countries. In the peoples, how SpainIN ItalyIN SlovakiaIN Romaniaor BulgariaWhere political scandals and corruption are more often, citizens are less likely to believe that such broad powers of observation Not subjected to violenceField

In addition to complexity, Austria has already begun Introduction of similar measures to strengthen encryption throughout the countryAn increase in fears that even if the Chat Management does not succeed at the EU level, fragmented versions of the proposals can still develop and spread to member states.

Technical and ethical fault lines

Chat control represents significant risks if it passes. Let's look at the three largest.

Helpers encryption

The main problem with the control of the chat is its effect on through encryption (E2EE). Services, how Signal or WhatsApp depend on E2ee To make sure that only the sender and recipient can read the message.

Forcing suppliers to scan the content before the encryption effectively creates Backdor. Legislators insist on this backdor exclusively to detect materials from childbirth. But let's be realistic: as soon as such a backdra exists, this is just a matter of time before An experienced bad actor finds a way to use itField

False positives and unproven technologies

The chat management technology remains largely unverified. Automated scanning tools designed to detect CSAM are subject to false operation, where harmless images or messages can be marked as illegal.

In other words, innocent users can be investigated on the basis of erroneous, unproven algorithms. And even worse, there are these detection systems that actually prevent abuse on a scale. This would leave an infrastructure of observation on severe forms without proven manuals.

Rights put on a card

Do not be mistaken, the technical risks of chat control are significant. But in addition to these risks, there is also a fundamental legal and ethical issue.

A The European parliament warned This general scan can violate Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EUwhich protects private and family life. In other words, what is represented as the protection of children can be considered as mass observation, undermining the EU's own rights.

Great question: Security against observation in the future of Europe

No one on both sides of the argument is opposed to the purpose of protecting children on the Internet. This is the emotional core of the Chat control proposal and the main reason why it continues to gain momentum throughout the EU.

But the real question is not whether the importance of children's protection is: this is that the price society is ready to pay for this.

Mandatory mass scanning of private conversations threatens to undermine digital freedoms in ways that are difficult to change. After the infrastructure for access to encrypted messages will be established, the story indicates that it rarely remains limited by one goal.

What begins as a tool against cruelty to children can quickly expand to other areas: disagreement, political speech or even everyday personal exchange.

How George Orwell warned in 1984:

“Nothing was yours except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull.”

The current discussion is focused on the EU, but the consequences go far beyond this. If the EU weakens encryption, this runs the risk of establishing a precedent who can be impatiently monitoring smaller democratic governments. This can lead to an alarming new norm, where private communication is no longer in terms of private.

As Edward Snowden once said, the dismissal of confidentiality, because you “have nothing to hide” is that he rejects freedom of speech, because you have “nothing to say”. Confidentiality is not a luxury; This is a fundamental democratic law. And as soon as he disappears, he rarely returns.