Beiträge

Lissabon, 20. Juni 2024 – Wir, die Unterzeichnenden, sprechen uns vehement gegen die geplante Einführung der sogenannten Chatkontrolle aus.

Wir sind zwar gerade auf Ausschussreise in Lissabon, haben aber die Diskussion zur Chatkontrolle intensiv begleitet und begrüßen die klare Ablehnung Deutschlands in Brüssel. Die Verschiebung der Abstimmung ist dabei nicht ausreichend, wir fordern die endgültige Ablehnung des Konzepts Chatkontrolle.

Wir sind der Überzeugung, dass mit der geplanten Chatkontrolle der abscheuliche Missbrauch von Kindern nicht verhindert werden kann, dafür aber jegliche Kommunikation kontrolliert werden könnte.

Es bedarf anderer Maßnahmen wie verpflichtende Meldemechanismen bei Online-Diensten, eine stabile Finanzierung von Hotlines und Beratungsstellen sowie eine Verbesserung der Medienkompetenz insbesondere in vulnerablen Gruppen sowie mehr Sensibilisierung der Bevölkerung und stärkere Prävention auch im Analogen.

Schutz der Privatsphäre in Gefahr

Das Recht auf Privatsphäre, das von der Bundesregierung geplante Recht auf Verschlüsselung und das Recht auf Schutz vor Gewalt dürfen nicht gegeneinander ausgespielt werden. Sie alle sind essenziell für die gesellschaftliche und demokratische Teilhabe aller, insbesondere von unterrepräsentierten Gruppen und nicht zuletzt von Jugendlichen und Heranwachsenden selbst.

Unverhältnismäßigkeit und Gefährdung spezifischer Gruppen

Doch nicht nur Kinder und Jugendliche haben ein Recht auf Privatsphäre – auch durch Verschlüsselung –, das es zu schützen gilt. Angehörige benachteiligter Gruppen, Journalistinnen, Whistleblowerinnen und Anwälte sind am meisten von Überwachung und Machtmissbrauch durch staatliche und andere Kontrollstellen betroffen und deshalb besonders auf intakte Verschlüsselung ihrer Kommunikation angewiesen.

Rechtsstaatliche Prinzipien bewahren

Die Einführung der Chatkontrolle steht im Widerspruch zu dem Grundrecht auf Gewährleistung der Vertraulichkeit und Integrität informationstechnischer Systeme sowie den Grundrechten auf Privatsphäre und Meinungsfreiheit, wie sie in der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und dem Grundgesetz verankert sind. Der Schutz
dieser Rechte ist essenziell für das Vertrauen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Rechtsstaat und die Demokratie.

Unterzeichnende:

  • Tabea Rössner MdB, Ausschussvorsitzende des Auschuss für Digitales, B90/Grüne
  • Anke Domscheit-Berg MdB, Mitglied des Auschuss für Digitales, Die Linke
  • Sabine Grützmacher MdB, Mitglied des Auschuss für Digitales, B90/Grüne

Kontakt für Rückfragen:

Anke Domscheit-Berg, MdB, digitalpolitische Sprecherin der Gruppe die Linke im Bundestag
Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin
(030) 227 73107
anke.domscheit-berg@bundestag.de

18.06.2024

Dear Council of the European Union, 
Dear national governments, 

In the last days of the Belgian EU Council Presidency, Belgium has put forward its final initiative to reach a general approach in the Council of the EU regarding the highly contested CSA regulation (Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse). In possibly putting the CSA Regulation to a vote on 19 June, the Council is risking far more than just passing a simple regulation. 

Sexual abuse and the exploitation of children, including the dissemination of child sexual abuse material, must be addressed with the utmost determination in accordance with the rule of law. While the regulation proposal put forward by the EU Commission includes some good and crucial measures, such as the EU center, it is highly questionable whether core aspects of the regulation are compatible with European fundamental rights. 

As parliamentarians, we observe with great concern the proposal of the Council of the EU that would put to an end the confidentiality of private communication. Even if the Belgian Council Presidency has now presented a compromise proposal that would limit the obligation to scanning private unencrypted as well as encrypted video and image content, it remains just as much an encroachment on fundamental digital rights and takes the discussion back to the origin of the debate. In fact, the Belgian proposal represents the Commission’s first plans that came to light in December 2021. 

Safe and encrypted communication is of utmost importance for every human being. This also accounts for children and victims of sexual abuse to allow for safe emergency and help services – particularly in countries where victim support organisations cannot rely on the support and confidentiality of state law enforcement authorities. 

Besides risking to contradict the aim of the CSA proposal by intervening in the digital self-determination of people, there might be several unintentional but dangerous side effects: 

  • Client Side Scanning (CSS) and any other mass surveillance, would render confidential information carriers impossible: Scanning would affect users who rely on confidential communication and whose communication is particularly protected (professionals bound by confidentiality such as journalists, lawyers, the medical sector, but also whistleblowers). Furthermore, built-in backdoors could compromise the confidentiality of digitally transmitted trade secrets and business transactions. Encryption protects the identity and the contents of communication participants, thus preserving the autonomy of victims of sexual violence. 
  • Democratic society and democratic debate need trustworthy spaces: Democratic societies need privacy for the formation of opinions and will. The proposed measures carry the danger of leading to self-censorship, jeopardizing safe spaces for children and victims of sexual violence, but also for everyone else. It will also likely leave to users unwilling to use digital services and lose trust in providers if their data is not secure and protected. 
  • Blueprint for authoritarian states and weakening cybersecurity: By building an architecture capable of undermining all possibility of private digital communication, the regulation might inadvertently serve as a blueprint for surveillance in authoritarian states and can serve as a built-in backdoor that can easily be exploited for all sorts of surveillance practices (e.g. trade secrets) and cybercriminals. Once built, this IT-architecture is an invitation to undermine privacy. 
  • Impairment of digital educational, youth, and assistance services: It will eliminate the common practice to exchange important sexual health information to such education as is case in some European countries. 

The mandatory investigation of private communication messages without suspicion carries the risk of creating a climate of general suspicion. Such an approach will irreparably damage the image of the European Union as a guarantor of freedom. 

We explicitly warn that the obligation to systematically scan encrypted communication, whether called “upload-moderation” or “client-side scanning”, would not only break secure end-to-end encryption, but will to a high probability also not withstand the case law of the European Court of Justice. Rather, such an attack would be in complete contrast to the European commitment to secure communication and digital privacy, as well as human rights in the digital space. 

We therefore urgently need an approach that prioritizes the protection and prevention of child sexual abuse, provides more resources and better-targeted coordination of European law enforcement authorities, strengthens victim support in accordance with fundamental rights, and avoids relying on a false sense of security through technosolutionism. 

As national and European parliamentarians, we are convinced that the proposed measures are incompatible with European fundamental rights. We are committed to safeguarding the right to anonymous and pseudonymous use of the internet, as well as strengthening end-to-end encryption. 

We urgently call on all negotiating governments in the COREPER to reject a general approach based on compromise proposal that Belgium has put forward. 

Signatories 

Tobias B. Bacherle, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Konstantin von Notz, MP & Vice Chair of the group, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Süleyman Zorba, MP, The Greens, Austria

Maximilian Funke-Kaiser, MP, FDP, Germany

Konstantin Kuhle, MP & Vice Chair of the  group, FDP, Germany 

Sven Clement, MP, Pirates, Luxembourg

Valentin Abel, MP, FDP, Germany

Sephanie Aeffner, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Alviina Alametsä, MEP, Greens/EFA, Finland

Rasmus Andresen, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany

Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus, MP, FDP, Germany 

Maik Außendorf, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Christian Bartelt, MP, FDP, Germany

Jens Beeck, MP, FDP, Germany

Katharina Beck, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Lukas Benner, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Michael Bloss, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany 

Damian Boeselager, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany 

Dr. Jens Brandenburg, MP, FDP, Germany

Patrick Breyer, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany 

Saskia Bricmont, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Belgium

Georg Bürstmayr, MP, The Greens, Austria 

Anke Domscheit-Berg, MP, Die Linke, Germany

Marcel Emmerich, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Emilia Fester, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Alexandra Geese, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany 

Stefan Gelbhaar, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Anikó Glogowski-Merten, MP, FDP, Germany

Andreas Glück, MEP, Renew Europe, Germany 

Marketa Gregorová, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Czech Republic

Sabine Grützmacher, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Thomas Hacker, MP, FDP, Germany

Svenja Hahn, MEP, Renew Europe, Germany 

Philipp Hartewig, MP, FDP, Germany

Katrin Helling-Plahr, MP, FDP, Germany 

Bernhard Herrmann, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Manuel Höferlin, MP, FDP, Germany

Dr. Christoph Hoffmann, MP, FDP, Germany 

Ottmar von Holtz, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Lamya Kaddor, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Misbah Khan, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Daniela Kluckert, MP, FDP, Germany 

Marcel Kolaja, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Czech Republic 

Moritz Körner, MEP, Renew Europe, Germany

Michael Kruse, MP, FDP, Germany

Wolfgang Kubicki, MP, FDP, Germany 

Katharina Kucharowits, MP, SPÖ, Austria

Renate Künast, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Ulrich Lechte, MP, FDP, Germany 

Dr. Thorsten Lieb, MP, FDP, Germany

Helge Limburg, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Denise Loop, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Oliver Luksic, MP, FDP, Germany

Kristine Lütke, MP, FDP, Germany 

Boris Mijatovic, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Maximilian Mordhorst, MP, FDP, Germany 

Hannah Neumann, MEP, The Greens/EFA, Germany 

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, MEP, Renew Europe, Germany 

Dr. Paula Piechotta, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Volker Redder, MP, FDP, Germany

Tabea Rößner, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Michael Sacher, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Kassem Taher Saleh, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Dr. Nikolaus Scherak, MP, NEOS, Austria 

Ria Schröder, MP, FDP, Germany

Kordula Schulz-Asche, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany 

Prof. Dr. Stephan Seiter, MP, FDP, Germany

Kim van Sparrentak, MP, The Greens/EFA, Netherlands 

Dr. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, MP, FDP, Germany 

Jens Teutrine, MP, FDP, Germany

Stephan Thomae, MP, FDP, Germany

Johannes Vogel, MP, FDP, Germany

Robin Wagener, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

Sandra Weeser, MP, FDP, Germany

Nicole Westig, MP, FDP, Germany

Katharina Willkomm, MP, FDP, Germany

Christina-Johanne Schröder, MP, Alliance 90/The Greens, Germany

————————————————————————————-

Offener Brief – als PDF