The questions are indeed gold: > 4. Does the COM share the view that recital 26 indicating that the use of end-to-end-encryption technology is an important too

The questions are indeed gold: > 4. Does the COM share the view that recital 26 indicating that the use of end-to-end-encryption technology is an important tool to guarantee the security and confidentiality of the communications of users means that technologies used to detect child abuse shall not undermine end-to-end-encryption? > 5. Could the COM please describe in detail on technology that does not break end-to-end-encryption, protect the terminal equipment and can still detect CSAM? Are there any technical or legal boundaries (existing or future) for using technologies to detect online child sexual abuse? Mathematically speaking, they could have stopped at that point, but they went on.