Davos Debate: End-to-End Encryption vs. Public Safety
Date: 2025-01-27 Author: Gabriel Deangelo Categories: IN WORLD
She argues that such cooperation is necessary to ensure public safety and combat crime in Europe. While her concerns about security are valid, the proposal to weaken end-to-end encryption and reduce privacy rights raises important questions about the balance between security and individual liberties.
Catherine de Bolle compared access to encrypted communications to traditional police actions, such as entering a closed house with a search warrant. In her opinion, the inability to access encrypted messages hinders law enforcement in the fight against crime and the protection of democracy. However, this comparison is an oversimplification of the problem. Encryption is not just a “closed door” in the digital space, it is an important tool that protects privacy, preserves confidential information and protects citizens from abuse, including by state authorities.
Privacy is not a secondary right that can be sacrificed for the sake of public safety. It is the foundation of democratic societies and a key component of individual liberty. The right to private correspondence ensures that citizens can communicate without fear of undue surveillance or persecution. This right becomes even more important in authoritarian regimes, where privacy serves as the last bastion of resistance.
Despite de Bolle’s good intentions, her position fails to take into account the potential dangers of abuse of access to encrypted data. Today, her proposal is aimed at combating criminals, but tomorrow it could lead to mass surveillance and political repression. History and current events show how governments, even in democracies, can abuse surveillance powers. The tragedy unfolding in Russia, where privacy was destroyed to enable a police regime, serves as a stark reminder of the risks of unfettered state power.
Interestingly, privacy is not the opposite of public safety, but rather a prerequisite for it. When citizens feel secure in their private communications, they are more willing to engage in free expression, political activism, and other activities that strengthen democracy. Sacrificing privacy for short-term security efforts weakens the long-term stability of democratic institutions.
Law enforcement already has a wide range of tools to combat crime, including judicially supervised surveillance, physical evidence collection, and covert operations. While encrypted communications can sometimes hinder investigations, they are not the only way to collect evidence. Effective law enforcement relies not on a single method, but on a comprehensive approach that respects individual rights.
Creating a “back door” to encryption can lead to uncontrolled use of the tool. These vulnerabilities can be exploited not only by governments, but also by malicious actors, including hackers and foreign adversaries. Introducing such vulnerabilities weakens the security of everyone from ordinary citizens to critical infrastructure operators.
Furthermore, the argument that encryption facilitates criminal activity ignores its broader societal benefits. Encryption protects sensitive data such as financial transactions, medical records and intellectual property. Weakening encryption will increase the risk of cyber attacks and identity theft, creating new security challenges.
So, Catherine de Bolle, privacy is a fundamental right, both de facto and de jure, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If the tech giants give in to the pressure, there is no doubt that the open source community and the blockchain industry will respond. Fully decentralized and encrypted chats will emerge (some of which are already in development). Such a response will be much harder to shut down. For example, using a blockchain network such as Bitcoin will make any hacking attempts useless.
