MEP David Casa defends vote for child protection amid privacy criticism

MEP David Casa has defended his vote in the European Parliament to extend a temporary legal framework that allows online platforms to detect and report child sexual abuse material, insisting critics have confused it with a separate and more controversial proposal that is still under negotiation.

MEPs Casa and David Aguis voted in favour while Labour MEPs voted against. The PN MEPs’ vote drew criticism from Momentum Secretary General Mark Camilleri Gambin, among others, who warned that extending the measure risks normalising the scanning of private communications and setting a dangerous precedent for privacy, encryption and journalistic confidentiality.

Critics argue that European Parliament President Robert Metsola pushed this through before the summer recess, when there was less attention to issues.

Casa told The Shift in reply to questions, “The criticism appears to conflate two separate legislative files.”

According to the MEP, Parliament voted only to extend a temporary derogation first introduced in 2021 after changes to EU telecommunications rules created uncertainty over whether messaging and email providers could continue voluntarily detecting and reporting child sexual abuse material without breaching the EU’s ePrivacy rules.

“The extension simply preserves the current legal framework while negotiations continue on a permanent regulation…. The derogation is deliberately narrow,” the MEP said.

“It applies strictly and exclusively to the detection, reporting and removal of online child sexual abuse material and the detection of child grooming.”

The MEP stressed that the measure does not authorise providers to scan communications for terrorism, political opinions, hate speech, copyright infringement or any other purpose.

The MEP also rejected claims that the extension weakens end-to-end encryption.

Providers must use the least privacy-intrusive technologies available; any processing must be necessary and proportionate; data must be deleted where no evidence of abuse is found; and all processing remains subject to the safeguards set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

He stressed the temporary derogation does not require providers to break or weaken end-to-end encryption.

“It is therefore difficult to see how this temporary extension can reasonably be characterised as an attack on freedom of expression or journalism,” Casa said.

The MEP noted that the measure has been in force for five years and that this week’s vote merely prevents a legal gap while negotiations on permanent legislation continue.

Camilleri Gambin, however, argued that even temporary measures should be viewed within the broader context of the EU’s plans to regulate online communications.

He warned that allowing providers to scan private communications, even voluntarily and for the purpose of combating child sexual abuse, could create precedents that threaten privacy and the confidentiality relied upon by journalists, lawyers and whistleblowers. He referred to the Momentum’s list of alternatives as a solution.

His concerns echo those raised by digital rights organisations across Europe over the proposed permanent Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAM), which remains under negotiation.

Critics of the permanent proposal argue that mandatory scanning of private communications could undermine encryption and weaken protections for confidential communications.

Supporters maintain that stronger technological tools are essential to tackle the widespread circulation of child sexual abuse material and the online grooming of children.

The MEP acknowledged that the permanent proposal raises “difficult questions” about privacy, encryption and the balance between protecting children and safeguarding fundamental rights.

“Those concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration,” the MEP said.

“I have consistently supported robust protections for freedom of expression, media freedom, journalists and privacy, and will continue to insist that any permanent framework fully respects those rights.”

“Protecting children from sexual abuse and protecting fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive objectives.”

While this week’s vote keeps the existing voluntary system in place, the wider debate over the permanent CSAM Regulation is expected to continue, with lawmakers facing the challenge of balancing child protection with privacy, secure communications and media freedom.