Disclosure: The opinions and opinions expressed here belong only to the author and do not show Crypto.news’s opinions or opinions.
In a recent statement in the Davos’s World Economic Forum, Europaul’s executive director Katherine Devol called for access to encrypted messages to cooperate with the technologies company with law enforcement. 。 DE BOLLE claims that such cooperation is essential for maintaining European public safety and fighting crimes. Her concerns about public safety are valid, but her proposal to disable end -to -end encryption and reduce privacy rights raises important questions on the balance between security and individual freedom.
DE BOLLE compared the traditional police communication to the traditional police behavior, such as forcing a locked house with a search warrant. According to her, if the encrypted message is not accessible, the law enforcement agency will fight crime and hinder the ability to protect democracy. However, this comparison is fundamentally defective, and the problem at hand is too simple. Cryptography is not just a “lock door” of a digital space. This is an important tool to guarantee privacy, protect confidential information, and protect citizens from state authorities’ abuse.
Basic properties of privacy
Privacy is not a secondary right that could be casually sacrificed for public safety. It is the foundation of a democratic society and supports the concept of personal freedom itself. Private communication rights guarantee that citizens can communicate without fear of unfair surveillance or persecution. This right is even more important in terms of authoritarian system that privacy functions as the final fortress of resistance to oppression.
De Bole may have good intentions, but her stance cannot explain the potential misuse of access to encrypted data. Today, this proposal may be aiming to target criminals, but tomorrow, mass monitoring and political suppression may be possible. History and present events provide sufficient evidence about how the government can exploit the monitoring, even in a democratic country. The tragedy developed in Russia, where privacy has been eroded to enable police administration and bloody authority, functions as a strict memory of unidentified state power.
Privacy as a pillar of public safety
Ironically, privacy is not a public safety antithesis. That is a prerequisite. When citizens feel safe in their private communication, they are more likely to be engaged in freedom, political activities, and other activities to strengthen democracy. Sacrificing privacy for short -term security benefits is to impair the long -term stability and resilience of a democratic system.
Law enforcement organizations already have a wide range of tools to fight crime, such as monitoring in justice, gathering physical evidence, and secret investigations. The encrypted message can hinder the investigation, but it is not the only way to collect evidence. Effective polishing is not a single method, but a comprehensive and balanced approach that respects personal rights.
In addition to reading communications, police have a large number of measures and tools to fight crime, but citizens have only one way to resist tailoring: private communication.
When an encryption is created from the backdoor, it is almost impossible for anyone to use it and control it for what purpose. Such a backdoor is vulnerable to exploitation by malicious actors, including hackers and foreign enemies. The introduction of such vulnerabilities impairs the security of everyone, from the general public to important infrastructure operators.
In addition, the debate of enabling encryption enables criminal acts. Cryptography protects confidential data such as financial transactions, medical records, and intellectual property. Weaking encryption will increase the risk of cyber attacks and theft of personal information, creating many new security issues.
No, Catherine de Bole is the basic right of privacy, as I explained, according to Article 8 of the European Human Rights Treaty.
Possibly aftermath
If Tech Giants surrenders, there is no doubt that the open source community and the blockchain industry will respond. A completely decentralized and encrypted chat appears (some are already in the early stage). This response is much more difficult to dismantle. For example, if you use a blockchain network like Bitcoin (BTC), you will see an unnecessary attempt. If I were in their position, I would not dare. Currently, accessing communication in many situations is still a relatively simple task, but it may be impossible in the future.
