‘Chat Control’ and the New Push for Corporate-Enforced Surveillance of Private Messages

European Union officials are debating proposals that would require or strongly pressure technology companies to scan private messages for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Widely labeled “chat control,” the idea is framed as a child-protection measure but would, in practice, mandate mass monitoring of private communications and risks serious mission creep.

What is at stake?

During debates this summer, Denmark’s Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard—an advocate for broader surveillance—declared, "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services." Critics warned that such statements imply government access to end-to-end encrypted services, which would require backdoors or other weakening of encryption.

The E.U. has since stepped back from explicitly mandating decryption by governments. Current proposals instead seek to make platforms legally responsible for the content their users exchange. That legal exposure would likely push companies to adopt automated scanning and other enforcement measures to reduce liability.

"Chat control is not dead; it is just being privatized," privacy advocate and former MEP Patrick Breyer said—meaning states will rely on private firms to implement surveillance that governments wish to avoid doing directly.

How this fits a broader trend

This push toward corporate-enforced monitoring is part of a wider decline in online freedom documented by Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2025. The report marks a 15th consecutive year of global decline in internet freedom, citing suppression of protests, growing censorship, and increased threats to free expression.

Worryingly, some countries long classed as "free" saw score declines. Of the 18 countries evaluated as Free, half lost ground during the report’s coverage period. The sharpest falls among those countries were recorded in Georgia, Germany, and the United States.

Examples cited

• Georgia: New rules forcing NGOs and media outlets that receive foreign funding to register with the government, plus criminal penalties of up to 45 days in prison for insulting public officials.
• Germany: Prosecutions tied to online insults and memes about politicians under laws on insult and hate speech—practices that persisted across changes in governing coalitions.
• United States: The report notes that the Trump administration detained some foreign nationals after revoking visas over nonviolent online expression and that authorities threatened or carried out politicized investigations into civil society organizations and media and tech companies. Observers also point to pressure from prior administrations on platforms to limit certain content.

Why governments are tightening control

One persuasive explanation is that the internet has decentralized the distribution of information. Individuals can now publish and circulate ideas without relying on traditional media gatekeepers or institutional authorities. As academic philosopher Dan Williams and analyst Martin Gurri have argued, social media erodes the ability of established institutions to shape narratives—prompting efforts to regain control through surveillance and censorship.

Surveillance and corporate-enforced moderation are tools to reassert authority: monitoring private conversations, penalizing dissent, and shaping what people see and say online. But these tactics come with costs. They weaken privacy norms, chill legitimate speech, and can deepen public distrust of institutions rather than restoring their legitimacy.

What this means for users

If companies are held legally liable for user content, they will likely adopt automated scanning and other intrusive measures—especially on encrypted platforms—unless robust legal protections for encryption and user privacy are enacted. The debate over "chat control" therefore matters not just for child safety policies but for fundamental privacy and free-speech protections online.

Preserving secure end-to-end encryption, insisting on narrow, transparent legal standards for any monitoring, and ensuring independent oversight are essential safeguards. Without them, well-intentioned child-protection efforts risk normalizing mass surveillance and eroding civil liberties across democratic societies.