Europe’s Chat Control Dilemma: Between Child Protection and Digital Privacy

As the European Union grapples with one of the most divisive digital policy debates in recent years, the so-called “Chat Control” proposal has come to symbolise a wider struggle between public safety and the right to privacy. Officially known as the CSAM scanning regulation, the measure seeks to detect and prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online by requiring messaging platforms to automatically scan private communications.

Author: Szilvia Kecsmar

Supporters frame the proposal as a moral imperative — a technological safeguard for Europe’s most vulnerable. Critics, however, warn that such a system would erode one of the cornerstones of digital rights: end-to-end encryption. Once messages are scanned before they are encrypted, they argue, the concept of private communication ceases to exist.

A Policy on Pause

After months of tense negotiations and mounting public resistance, the Council of the EU has put the proposal on hold. Germany’s decision to withdraw its support effectively deprived the measure of the necessary majority, postponing any final decision. But observers are quick to note that the battle is far from over; the proposal is expected to return to the Council’s agenda before year-end.

“The privacy community may have won a battle, but not the war,” said Eglė Markevičiūtė, an EU Affairs manager at the Consumer Choice Center Europe. “It’s likely that the regulation will be reintroduced with slight modifications or rebranding — but the core idea of scanning private messages may remain.”

A Divided Europe

The EU’s political map on Chat Control is a patchwork. Countries such as Austria, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have voiced firm opposition, citing concerns over encryption and surveillance. Others, including France, Spain, Hungary and Ireland, remain in favour, often driven by strong law-enforcement lobbies. Many in Central and Eastern Europe — with the notable exceptions of Poland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic — have yet to reach a clear stance.

Analysts point to structural reasons behind this divide. In much of the region, digital policy is fragmented across ministries, with interior ministries — typically focused on policing and security — dominating the conversation. “Few politicians want to appear soft on child protection,” Markevičiūtė noted. “That makes open debate difficult, even when privacy concerns are legitimate.”

Tech Industry Steps Forward

In some member states, notably Lithuania, the local tech and cybersecurity sectors have become increasingly vocal. Start-ups and digital associations have publicly defended encryption, warning that the proposal would not only undermine privacy but also expose European users to greater cyber risk. Their activism, combined with pressure from digital rights groups, has forced a growing number of governments to reconsider their positions.

Industry figures argue that while combating online child abuse is a moral necessity, mass scanning is not the solution. False positives, algorithmic errors and data breaches could lead to devastating consequences — both for users and for the companies legally required to police them.

The Public’s Role

Perhaps the most striking development has been the rise of coordinated public advocacy. Civil society groups and privacy activists across Europe used open letters, interactive maps and direct outreach campaigns to mobilise citizens and lawmakers alike. This grassroots push was instrumental in halting the legislative momentum.

“The only reason the proposal stalled was public pressure,” Markevičiūtė said. “This time, citizens used digital tools to protect their digital rights — a kind of civic encryption of democracy itself.”

Beyond Privacy vs. Safety

For all its controversy, the Chat Control debate underscores a deeper question about Europe’s digital future: can technology serve both security and freedom without compromise?

Experts suggest that the Commission’s next step should be to restart the conversation from first principles — bringing together technical experts, child-protection organisations, and privacy advocates to find workable solutions. As the issue returns to Brussels, one thing is clear: Europe’s choices on encryption and surveillance will define not just how it protects its children, but how it protects its democracy.

For more insights on Central European political risk, EU institutional developments, and transatlantic relations, follow CEA Magazine and the CEA Talk podcast.

Support independent analysis and journalism at CEA Magazine: https://centraleuropeanaffairs.com/donation

Cover photo credit: Gemini