TL;DR:
- EU lawmakers are facing scrutiny over their lack of transparency in dealings with child safety tech company Thorn.
- The Commission’s ombudsman found maladministration related to the withholding of information about interactions with Thorn.
- The ombudsman recommends increased public access to relevant documents for transparency.
- The proposed legislation aims to use surveillance technologies to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in digital messaging.
- The legislation is under negotiation by the European Parliament and Council, with concerns about its effectiveness and impact on privacy.
- Critics argue that lobbyists promoting child safety tech may influence the Commission’s proposal.
- The Commission’s response suggests a delay in addressing transparency concerns.
- An internal investigation into microtargeted ads promoting the legislation has not produced public results.
- The ombudsman declined to investigate microtargeting but is examining staff transfers from Europol to Thorn.
- Investigative journalism raised questions about industry influence on EU policymaking.
Main AI News:
European Union legislators are facing increased scrutiny in the realm of tech policy, specifically regarding the bloc’s proposed legislation to incorporate surveillance technologies, such as client-side scanning, into digital messaging platforms to identify child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The Commission’s ombudsman recently revealed findings of maladministration related to the EU executive’s decision to withhold certain information concerning its interactions with Thorn, a child safety tech company based in the United States. While some documents regarding their exchanges with Thorn were released by the Commission last year, access to others was denied.
The ombudsman’s recommendation stems from a complaint filed in June 2022 by a journalist, who had requested public access to documents sent to the Commission by Thorn. In her recommendation, Emily O’Reilly, the EU’s ombudsman, urges the Commission to reconsider its decision and provide significantly increased, if not full, public access to the relevant documents. Given the ongoing legislative procedure and the urgency of the matter, O’Reilly emphasizes the need for swift implementation of her recommendation.
The Commission initially proposed a legal framework in May 2022 that would require digital services to utilize automated technologies to detect and report CSAM, as well as identify and report grooming activity targeting children on their platforms. However, the legislation is currently under negotiation by the European Parliament and Council, making transparency crucial in the EU lawmaking process.
The disclosure of these documents is deemed essential as it enables the public to be more actively engaged in a decision-making process that directly impacts their privacy rights. Additionally, transparency allows for scrutiny of the influencers and information behind the legislative proposal. Critics argue that the Commission’s message-scanning proposal may have been influenced by lobbyists advocating for proprietary child safety tech, which could lead to commercial benefits from mandated automated CSAM checks.
Last year, concerns were raised about the Commission’s proposal, suggesting it might be ineffective in combating child sexual abuse and could jeopardize fundamental freedoms in a democratic society. Recently, parliamentarians supported a revised approach to combat CSAM, including the removal of the requirement for messaging platforms to scan end-to-end encrypted messages, among other limitations. However, EU legislation requires approval from the Commission and Council as well, making the outcome uncertain.
When questioned about the ombudsman’s recommendation to release more documents related to Thorn, the European Commission responded cautiously, indicating that it would carefully consider the recommendation and provide a reply by March 19. This suggests that a swift resolution is not imminent and hints at a delay in addressing the matter.
The Commission’s legislative proposal has already sparked controversy, including accusations of microtargeted ads run by its home affairs division on social media to promote the legislation, resulting in data protection complaints. An internal investigation into the matter has yet to produce public results.
Furthermore, the ombudsman declined to investigate the microtargeting issue, citing the ongoing Commission probe. However, she agreed to investigate the transfer of two former staff members from Europol to Thorn, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
The ombudsman’s investigation into communications between Europol and Thorn remains ongoing, with the outcome yet to be determined. It is noteworthy that access to ‘private’ communications between EU institutions and industry lobbyists has contributed to additional controversy surrounding the Commission’s message-scanning proposal.
Investigative journalism published by BalkanInsight last year questioned the influence of commercial child safety tech companies, such as Thorn, on EU policymaking. The report revealed close ties between Thorn and the Commission, raising concerns about the level of influence exerted by industry lobbyists.
Ylva Johansson, the EU commissioner leading the CSAM-scanning proposal, has consistently denied allegations that she allowed industry lobbyists to sway her proposal. Follow-up reporting by BalkanInsight revealed that Europol officials had pushed for broader access to data and the use of scanning systems for purposes beyond CSAM detection.
Critics of the controversial EU CSAM-scanning proposal have warned that once surveillance technology is integrated into private messaging systems, there will be pressure to expand the scope of surveillance beyond its original purpose.
Conclusion:
The lack of transparency in EU lawmakers’ dealings with Thorn, combined with concerns about the proposed legislation’s effectiveness and privacy impact, creates uncertainty in the market. Potential market participants in child safety tech should closely monitor developments and consider the evolving regulatory landscape when making strategic decisions.
