The proposed EU legislation aimed at combating child sexual abuse material, often referred to as the “chat control” is facing mounting criticism and internal resistance, threatening to derail its passage. Marit Hansen, the Data Protection Officer for Schleswig-Holstein, has strongly condemned the plan, arguing that it constitutes a “severe infringement on the rights of users” by subjecting everyone to a blanket suspicion. Hansen warned that the technical implementation poses a significant risk, potentially creating a “backdoor” enabling the widespread surveillance of online content.
Günter Krings, Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, underscored his party’s firm opposition to indiscriminate monitoring of digital chats. He defended end-to-end encryption as a “security gain” emphasizing its role in safeguarding privacy and sensitive data, rather than a vulnerability. Krings asserted that robust child protection measures and the preservation of private communication are not mutually exclusive goals and urged swift EU-level action against the exploitation of children online, but explicitly cautioned against proceeding with the proposal currently spearheaded by the Danish presidency.
The internal dissent extends beyond the CDU/CSU. SPD General Secretary Tim Klüssendorf has directly challenged Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) to publicly oppose the chat control plans within the EU Council. Klüssendorf declared that his party “decisively rejects the surveillance of private chats without a concrete suspicion” citing the fundamental right to privacy in communications. He stressed that the proposed legislation risked authorizing the “sweeping search” of private, encrypted conversations – even without reasonable cause – and advocated for a return to targeted, suspicion-based law enforcement.
Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) echoed this sentiment, deeming indiscriminate chat controls an “absolute taboo” within a democratic state. She declared Germany’s refusal to endorse such proposals within the EU, rejecting the notion that authorities could compel messaging services to proactively scan messages for suspicious content before transmission. Hubig reaffirmed her party’s commitment to combating child pornography at the EU level, but insisted that such progress should not come at the expense of fundamental citizen rights.
The growing chorus of opposition signals a potentially pivotal moment for the proposed legislation. While agreement exists on the urgent need to protect children from online abuse, the method of achieving this goal and the potential impact on constitutional rights, remains a significant point of contention, threatening to fracture the EU’s approach to online safety. The debate highlights a deeper struggle over the balance between security, privacy and the limitations of state power in the digital age.