Words: Tess Hardy (she/her)
The interwoven nature of our relationship to the digital world doesn’t have to be one of fear.
Technology is an amazing feat of human innovation. It has become interwoven into every aspect of our lives – there’s no denying it. The words you are reading right now were typed out on my dusty Mac (she has served me well). But, at what point do we, like Icarus, fly too close to the sun? Despite being a self-proclaimed optimist, I feel as if the day when big tech destroys us all, Terminator 2 style, is creeping closer and closer.
The latest iteration of my perpetual fear is fixated on the EU’s “Chat Control” legislation. This legislation, initially proposed back in 2022, is said to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online (CSAM). Annually, over 300 million children are affected by online sexual exploitation. In the past year, approximately 1 in 8 children worldwide have been victimised by non-consensual sharing of sexual videos and images. So, any effort to reduce this horrific crisis is a great idea, right? Wrong.
The solution proposed by the EU, “Chat Control 2.0”, calls for the removal of end-to-end encryption and mass scanning of all digital messages, including those on encrypted platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Proton Mail. In less scientific jargon, every drunk text, confession, and argument becomes available to governmental authorities through AI filtering systems. Maybe it’s a good thing we left the EU after all…
Regulation of content is an issue that has affected the internet since its invention. This is a problem we are yet to, and might never, solve. Facebook and X have attempted regulation by employing real people to scroll through each post. The toll this took on their mental health was unimaginable. It’s suddenly easy to see why turning to AI seems more logical and ethical.
Yet, the question remains: how do we protect the most vulnerable without compromising the rights of all?
The majority of CSAM survivors are women and LGBTQIA+ people. These groups rely on encryption as a shield against surveillance, harassment, and retaliation. In the last few years, far-right governments across the world have grown in prominence. In the EU, Italy, Slovakia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have hard-right parties in government. It feels inevitable that these parties will weaponise this legislation against the very minority groups they claim to help. For women and queer people, encrypted communication is not a jovial luxury, but a condition of safety, dignity, and freedom online.
The warning signs of what the inception of “Chat Control” could entail are glaring at us. In countries where domestic violence is taboo, safe communication is a lifeline. Shelters such as the National Shelter Movement of South Africa and the Women Safe House in Nigeria rely on WhatsApp to connect with endangered women. Eradicating this encryption would strip away these protections, exposing survivors, activists, and dissidents to greater risk and harm. A 2023 report by Human Rights Watch found that security forces in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia targeted queer communities based on their activities on social media and dating apps, resulting in prosecution, torture, and other offline abuses. Suddenly, the “protective” guise of this legislation crumbles in our hands.
The threat to privacy that this legislation poses is severe. AI screening could easily be hijacked and used against marginalised communities. Encryption protects our human rights: it safeguards our privacy, security, and freedom of expression. Article 12 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines: ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence’. Why is it, then, that legislation which significantly infringes on privacy is allowed to pass?
Perhaps what is most sinister about “Chat Control 2.0” is that its infringement on human rights doesn’t apply to everyone. The Danish proposal of “Chat Control” – the bill’s latest iteration – excludes all government and military accounts from the scanning of private and encrypted chats. Of course, this makes complete sense! When have government or military officials ever been involved in sexual misconduct with minors? EU politicians are able to exempt themselves from surveillance under the pretence of “professional secrecy”. They get privacy. We don’t. Seems fair, right?
Our relationship with technology infects every aspect of our lives: we are fully wired in. The interwoven nature of our relationship to the digital world doesn’t have to be one of fear. But, for this to be the case, we must have privacy. Encryption is a democratic safeguard that restores boundaries between individuals and institutions. Surveillance-driven solutions to tech-induced problems compromise our safety and do little to protect survivors of CSAM from greater harm. Instead of “Big Brother” constantly watching, a survivor-centred, rights-based approach is the most effective way to uphold dignity, freedom, and security for all.
