Chat control faces fresh pushback in Denmark, as the Data Ethics Council (Dataetisk Råd) warns that EU plans to enable scanning of encrypted conversations would erode core democratic freedoms and privacy protections. In a new opinion piece, the council argues the proposal—part of the EU’s draft Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Regulation—risks normalising mass surveillance and weakening end‑to‑end encryption.
Council’s critique: mass scanning and democratic costs
The Data Ethics Council says obliging platforms to build systems to inspect private images and videos—including on encrypted services—would amount to potential surveillance of hundreds of millions of users.
The body cautions that centralised EU data hubs could invite secondary uses by other authorities over time, with limited value for individual investigations and a high risk of false positives. The council frames the measure as incompatible with citizens’ control over personal data and the confidentiality of communications.
700 researchers warn of a systemic security risk
An open letter signed by hundreds of cryptography and security researchers across Europe warns that chat control would undermine device and network security by mandating or incentivising client‑side scanning.
Signatories argue the approach creates new vulnerabilities, threatens end‑to‑end encryption, and could enable unprecedented surveillance and censorship well beyond the fight against child abuse material. The researchers call for solutions focused on targeted investigations, improved removal of illegal content and better support for victims and law enforcement cooperation.
What has (and hasn’t) changed in the latest draft
Under Denmark’s rotating Council presidency, a revised compromise text has been circulated to break the deadlock on the CSA Regulation. While negotiators have iterated on detection obligations and scope, critics say the proposal still permits mechanisms that would effectively scan private communications, including on encrypted services, and lacks “real protection” for private life and secure communication. The core controversy—whether any scanning mandate can coexist with strong encryption—remains unresolved.
Denmark’s role and the EU timetable
Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard (S) leads efforts during Denmark’s EU Council presidency to secure a common position. A decisive period looms with Council discussions in September–October 2025, and observers point to a potential vote around mid‑October. Even if governments agree, the text would still need to be reconciled with the European Parliament’s position in trilogues before any law can take effect. Member states remain split, with several capitals citing Charter rights on privacy and data protection.
Encryption, security and fundamental rights
Digital rights groups, encryption coalitions and messaging providers argue that client‑side scanning weakens device security by inserting scanning code at the “ends” of an end‑to‑end conversation.
This, they say, breaks the promise that only sender and recipient can read a message. Providers warn they could be forced to withdraw services or redesign products for the EU market. Civil‑liberties advocates add that mass scanning risks chilling journalism, whistleblowing and the work of human‑rights defenders.
Why this matters for the Nordics and the EU
Nordic countries are among Europe’s most digitally advanced and trust‑based societies. Policies that lower the bar for generalised scanning could affect cross‑border services, cloud security and public‑sector digitalisation across the region. The debate also tests the EU’s commitment to fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and its ambition for digital sovereignty grounded in trustworthy, secure communications.
The chat control debate now hinges on whether the Council can craft rules that address child protection without mandating surveillance of everyone’s private messages. Until that balance is convincingly achieved, resistance from experts, civil‑society groups and parts of the tech sector is likely to intensify—and so will scrutiny of Denmark’s leadership in the file.
