Denmark has put forward a revised proposal for EU-wide chat control, attempting to navigate the complex terrain of online safety and individual privacy. While the plan shifts away from mandatory surveillance of all private conversations – known as “detection orders” – it retains significant points of contention that raise serious concerns about user rights and freedom of expression.
The Danish proposal introduces a system where companies voluntarily choose to search for sensitive content within encrypted messages, rather than mandating constant monitoring by tech platforms. Critics argue this distinction is misleading because the phrase “voluntary” in EU policy often operates as a nudge towards de facto obligations. Companies hesitant to opt out risk facing pressure and potential regulatory disadvantages, effectively pushing them towards compliance without explicit legal requirements.
This reliance on voluntary measures directly contradicts the European Parliament’s (EP) stance, which insists that access to private communications should only be granted by judicial order. The EP argues this is crucial for upholding fundamental privacy rights and establishing a clear boundary against potential overreach by EU institutions.
Beyond the issue of warrants, the Danish proposal faces criticism on two other critical fronts: restrictions on underage users and the suppression of anonymous communication. Article 6 of the proposal would effectively ban individuals under 16 from installing popular messaging apps like WhatsApp or Telegram, citing concerns about online grooming. However, this measure is seen as impractical and easily circumvented by teenagers utilizing VPNs – a trend already evident in countries with similar restrictions.
Furthermore, Article 4(3) seeks to eliminate anonymous email and chat accounts, requiring users to provide identification documents or facial recognition data. This blanket removal of anonymity would severely hamper whistleblowing within investigative journalism and civil society organizations, potentially chilling free speech and holding back crucial information from the public sphere.
The Danish proposal highlights the ongoing struggle to balance online safety with individual liberties in the digital age. While its intention to avoid blanket surveillance is a positive step, its reliance on voluntary measures, limitations on minors’ access to communication platforms, and sweeping restrictions on anonymity raise serious questions about whether it truly protects privacy or sets a dangerous precedent for future control mechanisms.
