“We’re late,” declares a Security Forces Commander in a scene that underscores the urgent fight against cyber crime. This is not merely a political perception of the pace of crime. The EU, with Spain assuming the presidency of the Council of Europe, is pushing for a European framework that makes collaboration easier for police, prosecutors, and judges when dealing with online communications across phone messaging and social networks.
European security services face hurdles when seeking information from platforms about what a criminal said to a victim or an associate, especially when those platforms are headquartered outside Europe. A senior aide to Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska voices a pointed criticism of major tech companies, suggesting they effectively keep the doors closed when investigators knock, highlighting a need for greater cooperation.
While not naming companies, the implication centers on giants like Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), Alphabet (Google), and Telegram. The broader grievance is that access to data is blocked by the geography of corporate servers. This issue dominated discussions at the last Justice and Home Affairs Council in Logroño, with plans to revisit it in Brussels toward the end of September.
very serious crime
On 25 August, a new Digital Services Law imposes obligations on major platforms to counter disinformation and to explain why algorithms promote certain content to some users. This marks a significant shift in how online spaces are governed within the EU.
Beyond headlines about hybrid and cognitive warfare, the focus remains on straightforward crime. The priority is protecting children online and preventing sexual offenses committed via the internet.
A victim profile at a home in Santa Coloma de Farners in 2011 illustrates the real-world impact of cyber-harassment, underscoring the human dimension of these technical debates.
European policymakers stress the need for robust legal reforms to improve protection and to balance civil liberties with security. The aim is to equip police with reliable tools to investigate serious cases, including online sexual exploitation, while safeguarding fundamental rights.
One central question is whether temporary and limited access to data can be standardized across platforms to support investigations without compromising privacy. The debate focuses on ensuring that any data access remains proportionate and legally grounded, rather than leaving investigators empty-handed in a difficult digital landscape.
There is broad agreement that end-to-end encryption cannot be abolished, but the industry is urged to cooperate with authorities under clear legal frameworks. The challenge is to align platform policies with European laws while respecting user privacy and data protection standards.
European Commissioner Johansson noted that platforms have collaborated so far, driven by both willingness and legal obligations. The point is for cooperation to be anchored in consistent laws that Europe has set forth, rather than relying solely on unilateral corporate policies.
suspicion in the seats
Security officials are pushing for greater transparency and more robust data access, but there is resistance within the European Parliament. Critics worry that extensive surveillance could undermine privacy for ordinary citizens. A former justice minister acknowledged a deep sensitivity around civil liberties while recognizing the necessity of effective law enforcement.
Snapshots from Logroño show leaders advocating for a European framework to access electronic communications data, with the goal of supporting investigations into organized crime and online abuse while protecting fundamental rights.
The discussion emphasizes that a balanced and practical approach is essential. If data access is too restrictive, it can hamper investigation capabilities; if too permissive, it risks privacy and civil liberties. The challenge is to strike a fair middle ground through precise, legally sound reforms.
One recurring point is the need for platform accountability without eroding trust. The conversation stresses that the aim is not to erode the privacy of end users, but to ensure lawful access when governments need to investigate serious crimes.
Concerns about opaque platforms facing the courts are raised. There is a push for platforms to engage openly with authorities, developing mechanisms that respect diverse legal systems while ensuring accountability.
European Commissioner Johansson described a cautious but constructive stance: cooperation exists when platforms act in line with European laws, not merely those of North America. The path forward requires alignment rather than unilateral action.
red line
Current European parliamentary structures tend to limit police access to data. The red lines emphasize time-limited, non-discretionary data retention by EU authorities, avoiding arbitrary storage practices and ensuring proportionality in investigations.
Debates on security and freedom echo historical tensions, with occasional critiques of the pace of regulatory responses to fast-moving technologies. The LIBE committee chair notes that Europe’s procedures are intricate, and some observers wish for quicker legal action, akin to emergency decrees seen elsewhere, while acknowledging the need to preserve rights.
López Aguilar argues that criminal liability must be rooted in clear rules. Operators should appoint European representatives, and obstruction of justice remains a valid criminal principle. The overarching message is that security is a right, and responsible, enforceable measures are essential.
The coming struggle over platform lobbying and how to govern digital spaces continues. The security community observes how the corridors of power reflect the ongoing shift since the Lisbon Treaty, with a legal framework for data protection that remains in effect and influential.