I am clear why and how my proposal to fight child sexual abuse online was tabled – and I am proud to publicise it

The Commission proposal to fight child sexual abuse online is making its way through the EU legislative process. It was discussed at last week’s Home Affairs Council of Ministers (JHA) in Luxembourg. Both the Council and the European Parliament are working hard to finalise their positions.

In the spirit of transparency, with which I have always approached this proposal, I will discuss with members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs on Wednesday 25^th October.

Ahead of this meeting I want to make clear a number of points. I am clear why and how my proposal to fight child sexual abuse online was tabled, and I am proud to publicise it.

The ‘why’ I made my proposal is the following: to rescue children from ongoing sexual violence, to protect the privacy of the children whose rapes are shared online, and to ensure that there is legislative certainty about how to fight the exploding problem of child sexual abuse material online.

It is designed to oblige companies to first and foremost prevent abuse and as a matter of last resort detect abuse. It is to ensure the right balance for all fundamental rights: the right to privacy and the right of children not to be subjected to sexual violence.

The ‘how’ we prepared this proposal is a process I am willing to outline in detail. It is incredibly important to me that people understand that I tabled this proposal with open eyes and open ears. By that I mean that yes, my motivation is to protect children - that is our responsibility as legislators. But I am aware that the delivery of this proposal in practical terms is a complicated equation, with many elements for consideration. A forensic approach is needed. As standard, I ensured that we consulted extensively in advance and that we followed the approval process within the Commission to the letter.

The consultation process was with stakeholders, those who are primarily privacy advocates and those who are primarily child rights advocates. I say primarily because there is no one who is 100% on one side or the other. It is a question of balance. I respect the expertise and the passion each side has expressed.

Ultimately, it is my firm belief that the proposal gets the balance right. It is for this reason that the proposal is ‘technology neutral.’

The first goal is to prevent child sexual abuse online (CSA), and when needed to allow for the detection of CSA.

The text is built on GDPR and other requirements in law. It specifically prohibits using the detection technologies for any other purpose than the detection of child sexual abuse online. Using exclusively verified indicators of child sexual abuse provided by an EU centre.

On the process of drafting and adoption, let me emphasise that the normal legislative procedure was followed. Within the Commission the standard consultative process between services meant that the proposal was scrutinised from multiple perspectives by multiple Commission experts.

The text was rigorously examined and ultimately unanimously adopted by the College of Commissioners.

To note, it included a thorough impact assessment. There were two years of public consultations, including two  public stakeholder consultations. 455 citizens, 62 NGOs, 21 authorities, 16 businesses and 4 Academic research institutes were involved.

These  included European Privacy organisation EDRI,  the Association of  Austrian Lawyers, the German Federal Association of Freelance Professions, the Internet foundation. And other organisations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, from Open Exchange, Secure communication experts Boxcryptor, Cryptomator, Mail.de, Mailfence, Praxonomy, Tresorit, Tutanota.

A lot of these organisations were not shy in expressing their scepticism. And that was a normal part of the process.

My team met with dozens of stakeholders, and spoke at many conferences and workshops to get input.

But there is also enormous public support since the text was published. So far, more than 520,000 people have signed a petition in favour. 80% of Europeans support according to Eurobarometer. This has been confirmed by other surveys. For example, by ECPAT.

95% of Europeans say it is important to have laws to regulate providers against child sexual abuse.

I am proud to stand beside the Brave Movement. Thanks to them I speak not of “victims,” but of “survivors.” These survivors will have my everlasting respect, and gratitude.

Lastly I want to say that I am proud to publicise this draft law. Firstly, this is standard Commission practice. For example, the Commission promotes the Green Deal against climate deniers and vigorously defend our policies supporting Ukraine against Russian disinformation.

EU citizens deserve to know why we present proposals and what is in them. An objective outline is important, especially when these proposals are subject to intense discussion. For example, DG Environment promoted the Nature Restoration Law – which passed through the European Parliament with a very narrow majority.

Public debate and scrutiny are a healthy part of debate, and of drafting legislation. I am confident that examination of the whys and hows will show this to be a well-constructed, objective, balanced, and most importantly, urgently needed, proposal to fight child sexual abuse online.