No to mass surveillance of private communication
A European citizens' initiative for the protection of privacy, freedom of communication and fundamental rights
We do not oppose the protection of children. We oppose the creation of a system in which the private communication of millions of innocent citizens can be technically analysed without individual suspicion and without prior judicial oversight.
Why this initiative exists
„Freedom does not end only when someone takes away a person's right to speak. It ends earlier, when a person starts wondering whether their private conversation will actually remain private.”
„Security and freedom are not values a democratic state may freely choose between. Its duty is to protect both.”
Why was this initiative created?
An increasing number of legal and technical solutions allow for the widespread analysis of private electronic communication — regardless of whether there is any suspicion against the person concerned. We believe this direction threatens the foundations of a free society.
What are we opposing?
We oppose solutions leading to the general or indiscriminate analysis of communications of people against whom no specific, justified suspicion of a crime exists.
Why doesn't child protection justify mass analysis of communication?
Protecting children is a duty of the state and society — but one carried out by prosecuting offenders, not by placing the entire population under technical surveillance, including people who have never committed and will never commit any crime.
Why is privacy a fundamental right?
Privacy of communication is a precondition for the free exercise of other rights and freedoms — freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, professional secrecy, freedom of the press. Weakening it weakens all of these freedoms at once.
What risk does infrastructure capable of systemic message analysis create?
Once built, a surveillance system can be extended to other purposes, misused, or become a target for attack. Mass-surveillance infrastructure, even if built in good faith, poses a lasting threat to civil liberties.
Our demands
We present seven core demands addressed to European institutions and the governments of member states.
- Rejection of solutions leading to general or indiscriminate scanning of private communication.
- Protection of end-to-end encryption.
- A ban on analysing communication on the user's device before encryption without an individual legal basis and judicial oversight.
- Full protection of pastoral, medical, psychological, legal and journalistic communication.
- Surveillance measures applied only to specific individuals, based on law and the decision of a competent authority.
- The citizen's right to information, appeal and an effective legal remedy in the event of a wrongly flagged message.
- An independent assessment of the compliance of regulations with fundamental rights.
Our position on child protection
The initiative firmly supports effective protection of children from sexual exploitation, violence and online crime. However, we cannot accept a solution in which the privacy of hundreds of millions of citizens becomes the price of prosecuting offenders.
Effective child protection requires:
- well-equipped services,
- effective international cooperation,
- rapid removal of unlawful material,
- prosecution of offenders and criminal networks,
- support for victims,
- education for children and parents,
- accountability of online platforms,
- efficient judicial proceedings.
These actions must target offenders and the sources of crime — not the private communication of society as a whole.
Pastoral confidentiality and privileged communication
Modern pastoral work is also carried out through email, messaging apps and contact forms. Clergy receive messages concerning matters requiring the highest degree of confidentiality.
Clergy receive messages concerning, among others:
Such communication cannot be treated as an ordinary data set intended for automatic analysis. Where justified grounds exist to suspect a specific individual of a crime, the relevant authorities should act in accordance with the law and under judicial oversight — but this must not lead to automatic analysis of all communication carried out by churches and religious communities.
Facts and questions
In this section we distinguish between fact, opinion, legal analysis and the initiative's position. Content does not suggest certainty where interpretive disputes exist.