I disagree with the policy, but this article is far less well-thought than other commenters think. * That child abuse is largely familial is irrelevant. It is

I disagree with the policy, but this article is far less well-thought than other commenters think. * That child abuse is largely familial is irrelevant. It is precisely long-term child abuse which becomes CSAM. * That 10% of children are abused is a large figure. That, now, c. 70% of CSAM is children generating their own material (using presumably scannable devices), provides a significant justification for scanning those devices. * That police forces are ineffective at combating both abuse and CSAM is irrelevant. Government's ability to prioritise child abuse in policing is presumably sensitive to its effectiveness, and other policing priorities. If the EU could pass a tech regulation law to cut down a vast amount of online CSAM, then why wouldnt they? * The government isnt a unified entity, like a person, with some coherent set of priorities. Speaking of it this way will always induce some paranoia. The police's priorities, EU's tech groups, EU states, EU police forces, etc. are all different orgs with different, incoherent, actions. I think the issue of children now being the major generators of CSAM here is perhaps the key one.... I suspect there's a counter-proposal here which requires children's devices to have optional software on them.