This article is an opinion piece whose contents represent the standpoint of its author and not UPF Lund or The Perspective’s editorial board.
All across social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, cries of protest are echoing against what many are calling the “Chat Control” laws. This dystopian project, critics claim, was pushed by the EU to scrutinise every picture, message and opinion we share with our peers online. Through the use of AI, our communications would be analysed before they are even sent, violating our privacy in unprecedented ways.
However, putting aside the flood of sensationalised headlines condemning an alleged violation of fundamental rights, important questions remain: How much of it is true? What are the “EU Chat Control” laws about? What is actually happening?
“EU Chat Control” is the affectionate nickname that has been given to the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) proposed in 2022 by Ylva Johansson, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs. Its purpose is to combat online pedocriminality by implementing a series of measures, including those specific “EU Chat Control” laws. By scanning and detecting pedophilic material, the EU hopes to fight the online exploitation of children more effectively.
Yet, despite these well-meaning intentions, the CSAR is nowhere near ready for approval. Riddled with gaps, it neglects the fundamental rights of EU Citizens and residents, such as the protection of our privacy and correspondence stated in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, it can be argued that using AI for mass-surveillance will endanger citizens’ privacy by putting data out in the open to be misused, stolen, or worse. How so?
Experts in the field of cybersecurity warn that client-side scanning introduces significant security challenges by expanding the attack surface to user devices, making them vulnerable to hacking, manipulation, or exploitation by malicious actors. Ensuring proper controls to prevent misuse or circumvention is notoriously difficult, raising risks of unauthorized surveillance and system compromise. Meanwhile, the well-documented limitations of AI detection systems raise the likelihood of false positives, endangering innocent individuals and fuelling a “Big Brother” surveillance machinery that does little to address the real roots of the problem. Those regulations are evidently not the magic remedy for a societal illness that has been plaguing humanity for millennia.
UNICEF itself stressed that the real challenge is “not the absence of legislation but its enforcement, monitoring and coordination.” The organisation also highlights that the most promising prevention strategies are the education of minors, parents and their communities to build resilience, recognize risks and therefore, effectively report abuse. The real issue is lack of research and investment in offender prevention and rehabilitation thus leading to a gap in capacity for an actual trained staff, coordinated agency and trauma-informed support. In comparison, the CSAR seems like a blanket solution through surveillance tech.
To add insult to injury, politicians want to exempt themselves. Now, if the system is truly water-tight, safe from leaks of piracy, why should they exclude themselves from the control scanning? Between the Epstein island, the Dutroux case in Belgium and the Casa Pia scandal in Portugal – and let’s not forget the EU brotherly relationship with the Vatican! – politicians should arguably be the very last to receive exemptions.
This may all sound fatalistic, but there is a silver lining. It takes just one click to stay informed and make a difference within the democratic institutions of the EU. From the comfort of our homes, we can take matters into our own hands. As EU citizens, we have the right – and the power – to prevent the further decline of European democracy by contacting our local representative to voice our opinion. It only takes a few minutes, yet it can shape the future of European democracy.
If this regulation passes, it will set a dangerous precedent, laying the groundwork for future legislation that could be equally, if not more, invasive. As of now (11.10.2025), twelve member states (including Denmark, France, and Spain) support the proposal; six (including Belgium, Italy, and Sweden) remain undecided; and nine, including Germany, Finland and the Netherlands, oppose it.
The choice, ultimately, is ours.
By Sofia Mina Pessina
October 14, 2025
