The Netherlands will not approve a European legislative proposal that would undermine the confidentiality of communications, partly because, according to the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), it poses too great a risk to our digital security. That's fantastic news—for now, at least.

Dutch government does not support far-reaching EU proposal

So, the big newsHere's the official letter (in NL) is out: "The government has [...] decided to refrain from taking a position and will actively communicate this. As a result, the Netherlands will be counted among the countries that do not support the general orientation [of the Council]."

This is great news, because the proposal in question—the CSAM regulation—could force authorities to compel platforms like WhatsApp or Signal to monitor all the messages of all of their users. This is highly problematic as it constitutes indiscriminate mass surveillance and undermines the confidentiality of communications by bypassing the protection that encryption offers us.

By abstaining (and actively announcing this), it is highly likely that the so-called blocking minority will remain intact. This means that, once again, no agreement will be reached among the governments of the EU member states (in "the Council"). For now, that’s good news.

Major risk for cybersecurity

Along with the letter to the House of Representatives announcing the government's decision, a memo was made public. This is the memoThe memo is published on the site of the parliament (in Dutch only) the minister bases his decisions on. It states, among other things:

The AIVD warns that "introducing a scanning application on every mobile phone, along with an associated management infrastructure, would create an extremely large and complex system. This complex system would also have access to a large number of mobile devices and the personal data on them. Ultimately, this would result in a situation where the AIVD considers the risks to digital resilience to be too great."

This analysis highlights exactly why it’s important for the government to weigh not only the interests of criminal investigations, but also fundamental rights and cybersecurity in its decisions. We will analyze the memo in detail and take further action if necessary.

What should happen next?

The proposed route, namely large-scale monitoring of our communications, is a dead end. Therefore, we appeal to policymakers: go back to the drawing board and focus on prevention. This is what we've written before:

And what was the original goal of the [CSAM] proposal again? It's easy to forget with all the political wrangling. Exactly: protecting children and young people from sexual abuse on the internet. That’s a noble goal, and it’s important we take this shocking problem seriously. Everyone agrees on that. The main question is: how?

Let’s be clear: vulnerable children and young people gain nothing from policymakers who keep bickering over an impossible compromise in a deadlock over an extremely controversial bill. To truly help them, drop this ridiculous proposal, go back to the drawing board, and come up with proven, effective, and legally sound measures that don't compromise the safety of every internet user.