Privacy is a democratic prerequisite — not a brake on innovation or security. Without protected private space, free thinking and independent action become impossible.
I oppose the expanded use of biometric databases, such as the one made of our fingerprints and facial images, without clear necessity and proportionality. I also oppose the EU Chat Control proposal: mandatory client-side scanning would effectively break end-to-end encryption and turn every device into a surveillance tool. The GDPR is a floor, not a ceiling — public services should exceed its requirements, not just meet them.
Privacy-respecting digital services are not only possible — they build greater citizen trust and adoption. As a software developer, I have built systems where privacy is designed in from the start, not bolted on afterwards. That experience shapes how I think about digital public services.
Related posts
-
Chat control: parliament was right
The European Parliament rejected the extension of the chat control law. The police statistics are real, but parliament was still right — here is why.
-
Finland and Finns Risk Losing Control of Their Own Data – and It Will Cost Dearly
Voter data in Amazon's cloud, tax data with Microsoft. The CLOUD Act reaches data wherever it is stored, so Finland must decide on its own digital foundation.
-
The use of biometric identifiers in passports must not be expanded
When fingerprints were added to passports, Finland created a national biometric register. Now the government wants to open it to police use.
-
Fundamental rights must not be dismantled without justification
The government plans to extend intelligence methods to fight crime without individual suspicion — a serious threat to fundamental rights.
