4 reasons why we can’t have #ChatControl in the EU

The Council of European Union has postponed voting on CSAM / ChatControl to Thursday, June 20. The proposals, aimed at combating children’s sexual exploitation and abuse online, are problematic from a privacy, value and technical perspective. 

The updated proposal leaves two options for citizens: 

1. Agree on having all private chats, messages, and emails (plus cloud) screened for suspicious content.
2. Disagree and be unable to share photos, links, and videos in your private messages.

With the European Parliament’s election past us, world-famous European summer holidays coming soon, and the majority of the public either not understanding the issue fully or unwilling to chip in on such a sensitive topic, the European Commission has a golden window of opportunity to agree on the new measures before the Hungarian Presidency takes over from Belgium on July 1.

The goal of combatting children’s abuse online is commendable, but there are many ways #ChatControl could go south, changing the European landscape irreversibly.  

Reason #1. ChatControl is foreign to European values. In democratic societies, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental value. In dictatorships and autocratic societies, the presumption of guilt is a norm. While there are some exceptions in democracies where pre-screening is justified due to the scope of danger the society is exposed to (e.g. terrorism), Chat Control’s exception is opening dangerously wide doors to apply it as a further precedent. 

Reason #2. ChatControl can increase Europeans’ cyber vulnerability. Killing end-to-end encryption ‘for a greater good’ will come at a cost—millions of EU citizens will become more vulnerable to cyber-attacks. With weakened encryption, cybercriminals will adjust and use it to their advantage. 

Reason #3. ChatControl’s errors can be dangerous for individuals and societies. Despite the AI hype of the past few years, technology, like people, is prone to errors. Innocent individuals could be flagged falsely, and their information could be transferred to law enforcement authorities. Even if nothing happens, the ‘rule of optics’ is important in many European societies, potentially causing irreversible damage to people. 

Reason #4. Not only European, but also enemy law enforcement agencies can benefit. Yes, weakened encryption and an opportunity to spy on people in messaging apps will benefit European law enforcement agencies, who are exempt from the rules themselves. However, this loophole can potentially be used by countries outside of the EU. 

The number of dominoes of unintended consequences is much longer. We can only hope the European governments understand the impact and the scope of the decisions they are about to make.