Do European’s still have the right to a private conversation?

'Chat Control', a draconian measure that erodes privacy of individuals, has passed its second reading in the European Parliament. But what is it, and what does this mean for Europeans?

Invasion of privacy due to technology is not a new thing. Outrage at this has been expressed before. In the UK, the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal, where personal data was used to target voters, shocked many. Furthermore, in Europe, EU member states have previously received criticism due to the Pegasus malware scandal, which saw governments spying on high-profile and politically involved individuals. This represented an overreach by organisations and governments that affected the privacy of individuals and democracy. Chat Control seems worse. Chat Control allows media and messaging services to scan the photos and messages of individuals in the European Union, meaning its privacy infringing potential is vast.

The stated motive for this privacy infringement is child protection. The European Commission believes chat control will be effective at detecting, and subsequently hindering the distribution of, child sexual abuse material (CSAM). However, many believe this motive is being deployed as a 'trojan horse'. Critics fear this could be used to begin an age of mass surveillance within the European Union. Telegram Founder and free-speech advocate Pavel Durov has repeatedly warned of child protection being used to subvert the masses into accepting regulations that expand surveillance and decrease freedoms.

Chat control has the potential to erode privacy in an Orwellian way. People live as individuals in Europe. Therefore, they should be allowed to express their own opinions, no matter how extreme or disagreeable they may be. Although the aforementioned stated purpose of chat control is noble, its technology has the potential to spy on those who hold opinions that do not align with those of the EU. Therefore, chat control ushers in an era of little to no privacy, but it also has the potential to be used for the monitoring and suppression of opinion.

Chat Control has been rejected by European parliamentarians many times. The first rejection of it, in a permanent form, came in November of 2023. However, it has existed in EU law, in a temporary fashion, since 2021. On the 9th of July, a majority of European Parliament Members voted to reject chat control, 276 for and 314 against chat control's extension. However, this was a second reading, meaning an absolute majority of all MEPs was needed to reject the proposal. This has left many feeling disenfranchised and has been called a legislative trick rather than a mandate. There are further concerns that the European Council 'reopened the file' close to the Parliament's summer recess, meaning there were fewer MEPs to vote against chat control. This goes against their 'democratic' principles.

Ruth Firmenich, a German MEP and a non-attached member of the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, has mockingly called this, 'democracy European Union style', showing that some MEPs feel this exemplifies how the EU is anti-democratic. Furthermore, this type of regulation may contrast with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Chat control is likely a direct infringement of Article 7, 'everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, home, and communications'.

Peter Hummelgaard, Denmark's Finance Minister, was an early advocate of chat control. He stated, 'We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services'. This shows how the motive behind chat control has long been privacy infringement.

Where does this leave the United Kingdom? Obviously, we are no longer part of the European Union, however some of these developments are reflected in the UK. We are now very familiar with the social media ban for under sixteens. Tech companies will be responsible for the enforcement of the ban. This may lead to further data gathering by tech giants in an attempt to meet their legal obligations. Furthermore, concern has been raised in response to proposed digital IDs that could track one's social media activity. Burnham, however, has paused these plans for UK adults. Amnesty International has called this ban, 'the right diagnosis but the wrong prescription'. They argue that, although social media can be a dangerous place for children, it can also be a positive space for them. Removing children from social media does not tackle the problem, dangerous content on social media, at its roots.

Chat control represents a disturbing regression in civil liberties that may also be reflected in the UK. Although CSAM is a real issue, and governments must do more to act against it, the infringement of freedoms, and the potential suppression of opinion that comes along with it, can never be condoned.