This kind of legislation fundamentally misunderstands how easy it is for bad people to build their own end-to-end encryption layers on top of other messaging systems.

This person is mistakenly taking the justifications for these laws at face value. These governments aren’t trying to thwart bad actors, they’re trying to control their entire population. To point out that scofflaws can circumvent the laws is to misunderstand their true purpose.

I am glad you had fun writing that blog post but, for any purpose that matters: Yes, it is possible. And we are already seeing the pathway to it

1. Increasingly build a narrative that encrypted communication is for CSAM. The tor crowd are already doing a good job of providing fuel for this.
2. Argue “terrorism” for the rest. “Fortunately” people have realized the mess in Israel/Palestine is a lot more complicated, but it is only a matter of time
3. Strongly pressure/incentivize the major app/social media companies either disable it at the app level or maintain internal keys to decrypt messages (effectively disabling it)

End result? Only “tech savvy” people will know how to set up their own entirely parallel “internets” (similar to tor). And then the phone and OS app stores increasingly lock down on third party apps for “security”. Hell, I can even see a world where Redhat and Ubuntu strongly discourage these tools from being allowed in any official repositories because they want the government contracts for their premium OSes.

Will e2e truly be “banned”? No. But the only people doing it have insanely janky phones and linux.users with laptops. Which means it is nigh useless for the vast majority of whistleblowers and that “secretly being gay or a woman” becomes a huge mess where the vast majority of people will never understand how to protect themselves.

I don’t think anyone thinks that e2ee bans prevent people from using e2ee. What it does is force companies in their jurisdiction to install a backdoor

It is entirely plausible and it will make many people (who dont migrate to secure service providers) loose security and privacy.

I find this article more complex than it should. For me the logic is more basic:

You want to ban encryption? So no https so no banking online.

Laws made by elderly people, who confuse a remote control with a cell phone, to satisfy certain lobbies, whose spokespersons they are.

Even if they manage to carry out this law, until all the chat companies introduce it and the legislators of the different countries manage to introduce it into their own legislation, with the necessary infrastructure and the corresponding bureaucracies, I think that most of us would already be retired. or in a pine box.

Adding that until then there will be zillions of countermeasures available to give them the middle finger.

Until now there is a regulation that allows access to chats with a court order, in case there is an investigation against certain people for crimes. Trying to globalize it to the entire population by default, well, I think I’ll wait quietly, with agencies and administrations that still use FAX and Windows XP.

Can’t bad actors just create their own messaging app and their own encryption methods?