Child Protection Without Surveillance? European Union Chat Control Law.

If you believe the internet can be both safe and free, this debate matters. This article comes from someone who fully supports protecting children online but rejects the idea that mass surveillance is the price we must pay.

The EU’s proposed “Chat Control” law forced Europe to confront a difficult question: how far should governments go in monitoring private digital communications to prevent harm?

The Original Vision of “Chat Control” — And Why It Sparked Concern

Imagine sending a private voice note or personal message, knowing it may be scanned automatically before reaching its recipient, not because you’re suspected of a crime, but because everyone’s messages are treated the same.

That was the core concern behind the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse. While its goal was legitimate, the original proposal relied on mandatory scanning of private messages, including those protected by end-to-end encryption. To enable this, platforms would have needed client-side scanning or built-in access points, leaving encryption intact in name, but weakened in practice.

Encryption: The Invisible Shield Protecting Everyday Lives.

End-to-end encryption functions like a sealed envelope: only the sender and recipient can read what’s inside. Introducing scanning before encryption or secret access mechanisms breaks that promise.

The consequences extend far beyond criminals. Journalists, activists, abuse victims, and ordinary users all rely on secure communication. Weakening encryption erodes the trust that underpins digital life.

When Protection Becomes Surveillance: The Shift Toward Mass Monitoring.

The scale of the proposal was especially alarming. This was not targeted surveillance based on suspicion, but blanket monitoring of messages, images, and videos across the EU’s population, effectively treating hundreds of millions of people as potential suspects.

Such a shift marks a profound change in how democratic societies approach digital rights and law enforcement.

Why Algorithms Alone Cannot Understand Human Context

Automated detection systems are often portrayed as objective, but algorithms lack context. Innocent images, private jokes, or family photos can be misclassified.

False positives are not harmless errors. They can lead to investigations, reports to authorities, and lasting personal consequences—often without clear paths for redress.

Trust at Risk: How Scanning Private Messages Changes the Way We Communicate.

Knowing that private messages may be scanned changes how people communicate. It encourages self-censorship and weakens confidence in secure platforms.

Ironically, undermining encryption doesn’t improve safety. It increases vulnerability by weakening protections against fraud, hacking, and identity theft.

Innovation, Economy, and Privacy: Why These Futures Rise or Fall Together

Mandatory surveillance systems would also carry economic costs. Privacy-focused services could leave the EU market, smaller companies would struggle to comply, and innovation could slow.

Privacy and innovation are not opposing forces. Undermining one often damages the other.

A Turning Point: Europe Steps Back from Blanket Scanning

After public backlash and resistance from several member states, the EU revised its approach. Under the 2025 Danish presidency, mandatory blanket scanning was removed from the draft supported by the Council of the European Union.

The revised framework adopts a risk-based approach. Platforms assess their own risk levels and apply proportionate safeguards, with stronger obligations for higher-risk services. A new EU Centre on Child Sexual Abuse is also proposed to coordinate reports and support victims.

A Global Conversation: Why Europe’s Decision Matters Beyond Its Borders.

Digital borders do not exist. Platforms regulated in the EU serve users worldwide. Normalising message scanning in one of the world’s largest regulatory blocs would have set a powerful global precedent.

Once privacy is weakened in one place, it becomes easier to weaken it everywhere.

Rejecting the False Choice Between Safety and Privacy

Child protection is non-negotiable. So is the right to private, secure communication. Weakening encryption is not a temporary compromise it’s a structural change with lasting consequences.

Effective child protection lies in targeted investigations, strong reporting systems, victim support, and moderation in public online spaces not in treating every private message as potential evidence.

This debate isn’t about choosing between safety and privacy. It’s about rejecting a false choice. The scaling back of Chat Control shows that public scrutiny still matters and that protecting children does not require dismantling digital trust.