[jchw]

If you think this strengthens the case against encryption laws, I suggest you rethink. There’s plenty of valid arguments against banning strong encryption and this isn’t one. You can’t simultaneously argue that E2EE keeps people’s conversations private to eavesdropping and then suggest that it doesn’t prevent eavesdropping for law enforcement purposes- at face value it does, and image hash databases to prevent the spread of known CSAM exist today; see, for example, Project Arachnid. And yes, law enforcement eavesdrops for law enforcement purposes. That’s why wiretap warrants exist. Whether its a good thing is another argument entirely, but it is indeed the status quo.

[suizi]

Wiretap is a misnomer. Undermines security.

Put plainly, there will always be crimes you won't be able to catch. You prioritise resources on the most pressing ones and build up resources in the real world to tackle them in other ways. Dystopian lists on the client to control what you're allowed to say or think or report your thoughts back to the government still violates the principle E2EE is built upon.

There is no middle-ground. You either are secure or you are not. The genie is out of the bottle either way.

[baybal2]

> There’s plenty of valid arguments against banning strong encryption

There are no valid arguments against encryption

> And yes, law enforcement eavesdrops for law enforcement purposes

Lawful eavesdropping is an oxymoron

[6AA4FD]

Do you think there is no situation where it can be lawful for a law enforcement agency to perform a wiretap?

[baybal2]

Yes

[6AA4FD]

Well this is probably not the case if you are an American. See US code title 18 section 2516 paragraph 1.