https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ Reposting this since someone was curious about it.
Frankly, I would go further than him and not mince words.
It's a threat to privacy, free expression, and due process. Full stop.
It should be scrapped.
Noting that if such a proposal was to turn up in the U.S. (and it has), it would violate the First, Fourth, Sixth, and perhaps, more amendments of the Constitution.
Also, I would explicitly exclude "pseudo-photographs" or similar such things from any scope to protect human rights.
A blunt instrument is inappropriate here.
Chasing any and all such things is a waste of resources, unlikely to reduce abuse, and most likely counter-productive.
I wanted to be extra clear here, and to avoid any ifs or buts. No ifs or buts. No cleverness. No games.
If the E.U. is to do something, it absolutely should be narrowly targeted at content of actual people.
The E.U. is the bluntest of blunt instruments.
That said, they shouldn't be violating anyone's privacy, and this proposal certainly does that.
Disingenuous sniffer dog comparisons don't change that invasion of privacy.
By the way, isn't it interesting how the War on Drugs, even here, is used to argue for invasions of civil rights?
Also, Patrick's attempt to use "more accurate language" has only winded up making his language even more confusing.
I just use the term "child porn", the term widely used, without mincing words. Anti-authoritarian activism is not the place to experiment with strange and novel language.