Chat control & Kutcher: Ombudsman criticizes secrecy
Despite warnings, the EU Commission insists on transparency regarding messenger surveillance and its relations with the US organization Thorn.
(Image: Black Salmon/Shutterstock.com)
The European Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly "deeply" regrets the European Commission's refusal to make public four documents relating to the drafting of legislative proposals on chat control, in line with her recommendation. This concerns meetings between the Commission and Thorn, a "self-proclaimed" non-governmental organization which, according to O'Reilly, "developed and sold tools to uncover child sexual abuse material on the internet".
Thorn, co-founded by Hollywood star Ashton Kutcher, is considered the driving lobbying force behind the EU Commission's controversial draft regulation on online surveillance under the banner of combating child sexual abuse.
O'Reilly still believes it is necessary for the Commission to disclose the documents. According to the Irishwoman, such transparency would be crucial "so that the public could examine how stakeholders' contributions have influenced their legislative proposal". Only with the release of the papers would it have become publicly verifiable whether the Commission had acted independently and in the public interest. O'Reilly criticizes the Commission's view that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure.
Commission becomes entangled in contradictions
In its rejection of the freedom of information request, the EU Commission argued that Thorn had merely provided it with specialist knowledge and had not attempted to influence the legislative initiative. This is not true, emphasizes O'Reilly: Her investigation had revealed that the business strategy for the use of Thorn products such as the "Safer" filter had also been an issue. The program is designed to detect depictions of child sexual abuse based on Microsoft's PhotoDNA by comparing hash values of images and videos in databases of known recordings.
O'Reilly also criticizes the fact that the Commission's rejection is based on the protection of commercial interests. Large parts of the requested information were of a "general nature" or had already been published by Thorn itself. National authorities had also already partially disclosed the documents in accordance with their own regulations on freedom of information. The Commission's view is therefore puzzling. O'Reilly could now draw up a special report and submit it to the EU Parliament to escalate the dispute.
Last year, MEPs agreed on extensive corrections to the original draft on chat control. Despite repeated attempts, including by the Belgian Council Presidency over the past six months, the EU states have not yet been able to agree on a common line.
(dahe)
