/chat_control_letter

Template for reaching out to your permanent representative at the EU and ask them to vote against the current draft on Chat Control on 20/06.

[NAME OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE],

Tomorrow, on 20/06, the EU Council will be voting on the "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse", commonly called Chat Control.

The current draft on Chat Control is unacceptable, as it endangers fundamental rights and has been heavily criticised by Member States (including France, Germany, the Netherlands), MEPs, NGOs, experts, and European institutions. It has faced repeatedly strong opposition in its previous forms, and was rejected by the EU Parliament in Nov 2023.

I ask you to vote against the proposal. I also ask you to insist on a formal vote and for the abstentions to properly counted by the Presidency.

According to the latest draft regulation dated 28 May (Council document 9093/24), which is presented as "upload moderation", users of apps and services with chat functions are to be asked whether they accept the indiscriminate and error-prone scanning and possibly reporting of their privately shared images, photos and videos. Previously unknown images and videos are also to be scrutinised using “artificial intelligence” technology. If a user refuses the scanning, they would be blocked from sending or receiving images, photos, videos and links (Article 10). End-to-end encrypted services such as Whatsapp or Signal would have to implement the automated searches “prior to transmission” of a message (so-called client-side scanning, Article 10a).

The Chat Control initiative has been criticised for:

  • Infringement on right to privacy: The proposal is seen as incompatible with fundamental rights, infringing on the right to privacy and respect for private life.
  • Facilitation of abuse: The proposal is a blueprint for authoritarian states to undermine privacy.
  • Generalised and indiscriminate scanning: The proposal could lead to de facto generalised and indiscriminate scanning of electronic communications, breaching data protection and privacy rights, and putting at risk the private communications of activists, journalists, and others.
  • Chilling effects on legal content sharing: The proposal could have chilling effects on sharing legal content, as people may be deterred from sharing content due to the risk of misidentification.
  • Ineffective mechanism: Those who want to distribute child sexual abuse material (CSAM) would simply refuse consent and move to another service, while innocent users would still be caught in the flawed AI surveillance.
  • Technically infeasible: The proposal is criticised as technically infeasible, with no current technological solutions that can detect child sexual abuse material without high error rates and false positives.
  • Undermining end-to-end encryption: The proposal would undermine the security of digital communications and end-to-end encryption.
  • Lack of transparency and accountability: The process of drafting and promoting the proposal has been criticised for lacking transparency and accountability, with close involvement of foreign technology and law enforcement lobbyists.
  • Violation of EU data protection and privacy rules: The use of micro-targeting techniques to promote the proposal has been criticised for violating EU data protection and privacy rules.

The current proposal does not mitigate previous criticisms and adds several major problems:

  • Forced consent: Users would be coerced into consenting to data processing, which is not freely given and therefore not valid under EU law.
  • Client-side scanning: The proposal would require the use of client-side scanning, which is a form of spyware that undermines the security of private communications and leaves users vulnerable to malicious attacks.
  • Reward of services that violate users' privacy: The proposal would punish secure and privacy-respecting services, while rewarding those that violate people's privacy.

I implore you to consider the long-term consequences of this initiative and the potential harm it could cause to individuals, businesses, and society as a whole. I urge you to prioritize the protection of our fundamental rights and reject this proposal.

[YOUR NAME]

Sources: