Image: Derek Bruff, CC BY-NC 2.0
Chapter III
See: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse – Presidency compromise texts (Council doc. 13514/22, LIMITE, 12 October 2022, pdf):
“Delegations will find in the Annex Presidency compromise texts on the above proposal. Changes to document 9068/22 are marked in bold underline and strikethrough underline.
Compromise texts in Articles 25 to 39 are based on the discussions during the LEWP meeting of 22 September 2022 and delegations’ written comments.”
And the corrigendum (pdf): “The numbering of articles in document ST 13514/22 should be from Article 25 to Article 39, instead of Article 1 to Article 15.2
Chapter I
See: Presidency compromise texts (Council doc. 14008/22, LIMITE, 26 October 2022, pdf):
“Delegations will find in the Annex Presidency compromise texts on the above proposal. Changes to document 9068/22 are marked in bold and strikethrough. Changes to document 12354/22 are marked in bold underline and strikethrough underline.
Compromise texts in Articles 1 and 2 are based on the discussions during the LEWP meeting of 22 September 2022 and delegations’ written comments.”
Undermining encryption, threatening privacy
The Commission’s original proposal is available here.
When the proposal was published, Statewatch joined dozens of other organisations calling for it to be withdrawn due to the threat it poses to secure digital communications, which are – amongst other things – vital for protecting freedom of expression and the activities of journalists, whistleblowers, lawyers, medical professionals and others.
The statement noted:
“The proposed CSA Regulation has made a political decision to consider scanning and surveillance technologies safe despite widespread expert opinion to the contrary. If passed, this law will turn the internet into a space that is dangerous for everyone’s privacy, security and free expression. This includes the very children that this legislation aims to protect.”
In July, the European Data Protection Supervisor and European Data Protection Board issued a joint opinion (pdf) condemning numerous aspects of the proposal as unecessary and disproportionate.
