{"id":4510,"date":"2021-05-27T23:31:33","date_gmt":"2021-05-27T23:31:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/?p=4510"},"modified":"2021-07-08T07:30:15","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T07:30:15","slug":"eu-commission-willing-to-sacrifice-secrecy-of-correspondence-for-vermental-child-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitalhumanrights.blog\/en\/eu-commission-willing-to-sacrifice-secrecy-of-correspondence-for-vermental-child-protection\/","title":{"rendered":"Chatcontrol: How the EU Commission is willing to sacrifice the secrecy of correspondence for illusive child protection"},"content":{"rendered":"\n[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.7″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]

According to a hastily passed EU ePrivacy Derogation, our entire electronic communication will be searched for indications of paedophilia in the future. The EU Commission believes it has every right to carry out such an Orwellian invasion of privacy \u2013 because it is (supposedly) about child protection. This is not only grossly disproportionate, but actually achieves the opposite, as even\u00a0self-help organisation of survivors\u00a0emphasise. The infamous censorship debate is back.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201ehey sweetie, y\u00a0not send me a pic\u201c<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This text message could mean: \u201cHow do you do at the pony farm?\u201d, \u201cDid you buy the shoes?\u201d or \u201cIs the new flat bright enough?\u201c. But it might as well be about grooming, a sexual solicitation of minors by adults.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Written in a letter, we would consider this sentence a private matter. But an unencrypted email or text message is not a letter, not even a postcard. It is a folded piece of paper that we entrust to various hands for forwarding, like we did back in our school days.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Self-proclaimed child protectionists now want to assume the right to automatically sift through everything we send to each other electronically.<\/strong> And if a sentence or a picture is ambiguous, the police and private helpers should automatically receive a copy in order to take a closer look at whether this should be classified as a sexual assault against a child.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The German self-help organisation\u00a0MOGiS e.V.<\/a> (\u201cAbuse victims against internet blocking\u201d)\u00a0is campaigning against such total surveillance. And other affected activists are also highly critical of the plans, such as the Anti-stalking Project<\/a>. Alexander Hanff, himself<\/a>\u00a0a victim of abuse, activist and entrepreneur in the field of privacy, does not have a good word to say about the plans:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201eAs an abuse survivor, I (and millions of other survivors around the world) rely on confidential communication to find support and report the crimes against us. (…) The proposed solution does not meet the requirements of proportionality. (…) The proposal is so poorly written that it leaves the door open for abuse of power, for false reporting and for large-scale surveillance of all our private communications. Moreover, there is no evidence that such measures would be effective at all, and many critics believe (myself included) that such activities would simply be pushed underground, making them much harder to detect.\u201c<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

I didn’t want to believe it myself, so once again for the record:<\/p>\n

The EU Commission and the LIBE Committee (Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs) have introduced and already passed a proposal<\/a>, the so-called \u201cePrivacy Derogation<\/a>\u201d (repeal of the ePrivacy Directive, (1)), which suspends several fundamental rights of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (namely Articles 7 and 8<\/a>) as a blanket data retention<\/span>\u00a0and for all people.<\/strong> Providers and networks would be obliged to carry out the corresponding data scan. Any encryption would have to be weakened for this purpose. The background to this is the recent strengthening of user rights through an EU directive<\/a> and the fear that this would make it too easy for child porn rings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Important reasons for this initiative are probably, on the one hand, the technical feasibility (2) and the high savings potential compared to more suitable investigation methods in this area. And on the other hand, the high acceptance of surveillance measures on the topic of paedophilia \u2013 where everyone is outraged and thinks they have \u201cnothing to hide\u201d.<\/p>\n

But is the law really suitable and isn’t the baby being thrown out with the bathwater? Privacy activists such as EDRI<\/a>, Netzpolitik.org<\/a> or the\u00a0Pirate\u2019s Party in the European Parliament<\/a>\u00a0strongly\u00a0oppose the bill. The European Data Protection Supervisor<\/a> has also expressed considerable concerns. And the doubts of civil rights activists are more than justified.
.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Things look different at second glance<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n