Double Standards: Citizens Under Surveillance, Politicians Exempted

While the European Union, under the pretext of protecting children online, is pushing one of the most controversial legislative proposals of the last decade, the so-called Chat Control, it is clear from the drafts who will emerge unscathed from all this, and no, it is not you.

According to official interpretations, Members of the European Parliament, members of the European Commission, judicial officials, and even military, police, and intelligence personnel will not be subject to regular scanning of communications. They are protected by the rule of ‘professional secrecy’. In other words, while messages and all other digital communications of ordinary citizens will be mass-checked, politicians and institutions will enjoy privileged treatment. Remember this when they say that all those who disagree with this proposal must be hiding something.

Laws for Everyone, Except for Them

Such an approach is not new in history. Kings once ruled by divine mandate, while peasants were held accountable for every whisper. In a more modern guise, politicians enjoy immunities, special tax privileges, and now, it seems, the right for their messages not to be read by an algorithm. Democracy in the 21st century in its European version clearly means we are all equal, but some are more equal than others, and today’s peasants are evidently all of us.

For you, the average user of WhatsApp or Viber, the story looks different. Your message to your mom, partner, or pediatrician will be treated as potentially suspicious even before the other party reads it. An automated filter will flag millions of false positive messages daily, and the ‘security system’ will open private conversations to everyone, except of course for them.

Lawyer Vlaho Hrdalo reminds us of what Edward Snowden said long ago: “To say that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you currently have nothing to say.” The difference is that in this case, citizens will lose that right, while politicians simultaneously retain the privilege of silence.

Professional Secrecy or Professional Privilege?

In theory, the exemption only applies to communication related to official duties, while private messages of politicians and officials are not necessarily protected. But in practice, who will check that? Will the algorithm know how to distinguish when a representative is discussing a draft law and when they are discussing a summer vacation booking? Or will everything except citizens, i.e., peasants, be protected under the guise of ‘confidential communication’?

Who Controls the Controllers?

Let us remind ourselves, the privileged status of politicians is not a precedent. We have seen similar patterns in history: from parliamentary immunities that protect representatives from criminal prosecution to special tax schemes for high officials. Now history is repeating itself in digital form. While ordinary citizens lose anonymity and privacy, those who make the laws remain out of reach of those same laws.

By introducing Chat Control, the EU risks turning the digital space into an unprecedented system of mass surveillance. But the real scandal lies in the fact that politicians and institutions simultaneously create rules and laws that do not apply to them, raising the question of who will control the controllers?