Euro MPs back end-to-end encryption for all citizens
Careful with this stuff. It looks nice, but it may bite.<p>The &quot;states shall not impose any obligations&quot; is a great thing, but &quot;shall ensure that ... guaranteed ...&quot; isn&#x27;t so much. Your Parliament basically tells you how to write your software, and while this particular cause may be good[1] - the general concept isn&#x27;t healthy.<p>Granting governing bodies this level of control... that must require exceptional levels of trust in those bodies and <i>all</i> future ones that could be their successors. I&#x27;d argue that it&#x27;s better to have the very contrary thing - a ruling that no governing body may ever dictate how one can secure their communications and how they can&#x27;t (or, in more general terms - how one can write their software). Oh, and keep the &quot;states shall not impose&quot; clause, of course.<p>Yes, that leaves data-miners with their messengers still vulnerable, but I think it&#x27;s less important than a general non-interference principle. And I&#x27;m for having fines for calling non-E2E messengers &quot;secure&quot; if the wording may confuse user into thinking it&#x27;s E2E - that&#x27;s basically misadvertising. The issue is information gap and &quot;clever&quot; marketing - fix that and things will be good.<p>_____<p>[1] It may be a problem for early prototypes, if they had started with UI&#x2F;UX and a simple insecure &quot;TCP socket server&quot;-level stub for the messaging layer. Mandatory implementations are always a barrier.