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.
-
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.
