I am talking about what the original article mentioned, which is that certain Spanish legislators are pushing for what sounds like a blanket ban on E2EE by service providers, including the dominant communication platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal. This, in and of itself, is a massive overreach.
> Nobody needed E2E encryption on Facebook in its first couple decades [...]
The reality is that "transport encryption" does absolutely nothing to protect you from a malicious, authoritarian state actor, which is why the state's asking for it in the first place and why there have always been activists pushing for adoption of E2EE on these platforms. I should know, I was and still am one of them, so it's a bit absurd to say "nobody needed it for decades" when the only reason it's being adopted in the first place is because there's clear demand. And because the state has steadily gained the ability for technologically feasible mass surveillance for the first time in history, which is also a new phenomenon.
> We sacrifice the ability to do anything about the CSAM influencers profiting on the platform.
I'll spell it out bluntly: I acknowledge it could have such an effect, and it's a sacrifice I am willing to make, and deem to be a net gain for society as a whole. People have throughout history engaged in despicable behaviour, and will continue to do so in the online world because it's a reflection of who we are as a species, both good and bad.
> I'm not even arguing for a blanket ban of E2EE. What I'm arguing for is that we don't allow VLOPs to use it.
So we lose the ability to *maybe* do *something* on *some platforms* using only the online communications of the perpetrators, whom probably represent single digit percentages in the population. Meanwhile, traditional policing continues to exist, and the ban would, in practice, affect almost everyone else (or else what's the point?). Except, of course, the technologically literate criminals who will as always find ways around it.
I'm assuming you're aware of the far-reaching potential for misuse of your proposal, and presumably that's a sacrifice you're willing to make, so our differences can be easily summarised: you place higher value on punishing a relatively limited number of individuals for crimes deemed particularly damaging and offensive over sacrificing the whole of society's right to private communication, I do the opposite. In fact, if you grant that this issue will likely never fully be resolved (as history suggests is the case), we merely disagree about what the tolerable level for this crime is in exchange for safeguarding societal freedom. Same with all other forms of criminal activity throughout history...
As we've already sacrificed much in the name of this very issue, I hope people living in democratic nations understand what's at stake here, and that there will never be an end to these authoritarian arguments. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.