Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.
In a recent statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Europol’s executive director, Catherine De Bolle, called on technology companies to cooperate with law enforcement by providing access to encrypted messages. De Bolle argues that such cooperation is essential for maintaining public safety and combating crime in Europe. While her concerns about public safety are valid, her suggestion to override end-to-end encryption and diminish privacy rights raises critical questions about the balance between security and individual freedoms.
De Bolle likened access to encrypted correspondence to traditional police actions, such as enforcing entry into a locked house with a search warrant. According to her, the inability to access encrypted messages hampers law enforcement’s ability to fight crime and protect democracy. However, this comparison is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the issue at hand. Encryption is not merely a “locked door” in the digital space; it is a vital tool that ensures privacy, safeguards sensitive information, and protects citizens from abuse, including by state authorities.
The fundamental nature of privacy
Privacy is not a secondary right that can be casually sacrificed for the sake of public safety. It is a cornerstone of democratic societies and underpins the very concept of individual freedom. The right to private correspondence ensures that citizens can communicate without fear of unwarranted surveillance or persecution. This right becomes even more critical in the face of authoritarian regimes, where privacy serves as the final bastion of resistance against oppression.
While De Bolle may have good intentions, her stance fails to account for the potential misuse of access to encrypted data. Today, the proposal might aim to target criminals, but tomorrow, it could enable mass surveillance and political suppression. History and current events provide ample evidence of how governments, even in democratic countries, can misuse surveillance powers. The tragedy unfolding in Russia, where privacy has been eroded to enable the police regime and the bloody authoritarianism, serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked state power.
Privacy as a pillar of public safety
Ironically, privacy is not the antithesis of public safety; it is a prerequisite for it. When citizens feel secure in their private communications, they are more likely to engage in free speech, political activism, and other activities that strengthen democracy. Sacrificing privacy for short-term security gains undermines the long-term stability and resilience of democratic institutions.
Law enforcement already has a wide array of tools to combat crime, including surveillance under judicial oversight, physical evidence collection, and undercover operations. While encrypted messages may occasionally hinder investigations, they are not the only avenue for gathering evidence. Effective policing does not rely on a single method but on a comprehensive and balanced approach that respects individual rights.
Beyond reading correspondence, the police have a large array of measures and tools to combat crime, while citizens have only one way to collectively resist tyranny: private communications.
Once a backdoor to encryption is created, it becomes nearly impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Such backdoors are vulnerable to exploitation not only by governments but also by malicious actors, including hackers and foreign adversaries. The introduction of such vulnerabilities compromises the security of everyone, from ordinary citizens to critical infrastructure operators.
Moreover, the argument that encryption enables criminal activities overlooks its broader societal benefits. Encryption protects sensitive data such as financial transactions, medical records, and intellectual property. Weakening encryption would expose individuals and organizations to increased risks of cyberattacks and identity theft, creating a host of new security challenges.
So no, Catherine De Bolle, privacy is the fundamental right, both de facto—as I have just explained—and de jure, according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Possible aftermath
If tech giants surrender, there is no doubt that the open-source community and the blockchain industry will respond. Fully decentralized and encrypted chats will emerge (some are already in their infancy). This response will be far harder to dismantle. For example, leveraging a blockchain network like Bitcoin (BTC) would render any attempt to break it futile. If I were in their position, I would not dare; while accessing correspondence in many situations now is still a relatively straightforward task, in the future, it could become impossible.
