Two recent political developments, seemingly unrelated at first glance, together paint a troubling picture: In the European Union, negotiations are underway about scanning private communications, while in Turkey financial transactions are increasingly subject to explanation and analysis. Both cases follow the same pattern — and both mark another step away from individual freedom toward a preventive surveillance state.

At the center of the EU debate is the proposed CSAM regulation. Although the mandatory scanning of private chats has, for now, been removed from the draft legislation, the core problem remains: the state claims the right to treat private communication as inherently suspicious. Even so-called “voluntary” scanning by platforms creates enormous structural pressure to monitor private messages preemptively — not based on concrete suspicion, but across the board.

The protection of children serves as the moral shield intended to deflect criticism. Yet this is precisely where the danger lies: when a legitimate goal is allowed to justify any measure, the rule of law loses its boundaries. Freedom is not abolished openly, but gradually eroded — in the name of the Good.

Weathered Statue of Liberty representing privacy concerns amid digital surveillance debate in Europe and Turkey.

A similar mechanism can be observed in Turkey’s new rules for money transfers. Transactions above amounts between 200,000 and 400,000 lira (roughly €3,900 to €7,900) must be justified in detail so that AI-based systems can analyze them. Here too, the justification is fraud prevention, combating money laundering, and tax fairness. In practice, however, this represents a reversal of the presumption of innocence. Citizens must explain, justify, and document their actions — not because they are suspected, but simply because they act.

Communication and financial transactions are not peripheral aspects of life. They form the infrastructure of freedom. Those who control whom we talk to and how we use our money indirectly control thought, relationships, and economic self-determination.

Particularly problematic is the technological dimension of these developments. AI-driven analysis replaces judicial review; algorithms replace proportionality. Decisions become automated, accountability becomes blurred. The citizen no longer faces a state, but a system whose logic they neither understand nor can influence.

Democracy, however, does not thrive on control but on trust. It assumes that freedom is the default — and restriction the exception requiring justification. The current trend reverses this principle: freedom becomes the exception, surveillance the new normal.

The surveillance state rarely arrives through force. It comes with good intentions, technical solutions, and seemingly minor interventions. Precisely for this reason, vigilance is essential.

By Okay Altinisik | 30-12-2025, 00:24:31