By Dan Frieth – Reclaim The Net
Under the pretext of strengthening measures against child exploitation online, a controversial Senate bill is resurfacing with provisions that privacy advocates say would gut critical internet protections and compromise the security and privacy of all citizens.
Known as the STOP CSAM Act of 2025 (S. 1829), the legislation is being criticized for using broad language and vague legal standards that could severely weaken encryption and open the floodgates for content takedowns, including legal content, across a wide range of online services.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The bill’s stated aim is to curb the spread of child sexual abuse material, a crime already strictly prohibited under federal law. Current regulations already compel online platforms to report known instances of such material to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which coordinates with law enforcement.
However, S. 1829 goes well beyond this existing mandate, targeting a wide spectrum of internet platforms with new forms of criminal and civil liability that could penalize even the most privacy-conscious and compliant services.
The scope of the legislation is sweeping. Its provisions apply not only to large social media platforms but also to private messaging apps, cloud storage services, and email providers.
By introducing new crimes related to the “hosting” or “facilitating” of exploitative content; using legal terms with unclear boundaries, the bill places encrypted platforms at significant risk. Under the bill’s loose definition, simply providing a secure, privacy-focused service could be interpreted as “facilitating” illegal activity, regardless of whether the provider can access or verify the content being transmitted.
This is especially dangerous for services that implement end-to-end encryption, a core feature designed to keep user communications secure from both hackers and unauthorized surveillance.
Because such platforms cannot access user content, they could face liability for material they neither see nor control. Even a notice alleging the presence of CSAM could be enough to meet the bill’s threshold for knowledge, exposing providers to prosecution or lawsuits without concrete evidence.
Though the legislation offers what appears to be a safeguard, a legal defense for services that can prove it’s “technologically impossible” to remove CSAM without compromising encryption; it offers little meaningful protection.
This defense still forces companies into litigation, requiring them to expend resources to demonstrate their innocence in court. Smaller startups and alternative platforms would be especially vulnerable, potentially deterring new market entrants and consolidating control among a handful of tech giants.
Members of Congress have publicly suggested that techniques like client-side scanning could resolve the tension between encryption and detection. This claim has been repeatedly debunked by security experts, who warn that such tools dismantle the very essence of secure communication.
If the STOP CSAM Act becomes law, many platforms may adopt invasive scanning out of fear, not necessity, just to avoid liability, with real consequences for privacy and user trust.
Equally alarming is the bill’s attempt to rewrite Section 230, a foundational law that protects platforms from being sued over user-generated content. By creating a new exemption for civil claims tied to alleged facilitation of CSAM, the bill paves the way for lawsuits targeting online intermediaries for speech they didn’t create and cannot always monitor.
In the absence of Section 230 protections, many platforms may default to aggressive moderation, suppressing lawful expression to avoid potential legal trouble.
The fallout would not be limited to bad actors. Everyday users could find their posts deleted, their accounts suspended, or their access to communication tools blocked; not because their content is illegal, but because platforms fear liability. For many communities, particularly those relying on encrypted services for safety, this legislation threatens not just privacy but also their ability to speak and organize online.