[botto]

Ultimately the problem with any idea like this is that encryption is as basic as mathematics and trying to ban it will only harm everyday people and the dumb criminal.

The criminals that want to stay hidden will continue to do so because you will always find open source projects that provides encryption.

[auganov]

It wouldn't be an encryption ban, but a ban on operating a platform that enables E2EE messaging.

Similarly in most places you already cannot be an ISP or VPN provider without following some reporting requirements. And there's no simple way for criminals to get mainstream quality networking services that don't follow regulations.

I don't agree with the ban, but I do think it would certainly hurt many classes criminals. I'd say it's generally a pretty bad strategy to oppose such policies by denying the supposed effect on criminals. All kinds of freedoms benefit some criminals.

[intricatedetail]

You cannot ban it unless you start deep inspection of people conversations. You can easily sneak public keys disguised as regular conversation and then encrypt messages offline and disguise as well.

[auganov]

And I'm sure the government doesn't expect a perfect ban. By going after platforms you'll take the ability to engage in secure E2EE messaging away from a large part of the population.

E2EE messaging that required coordination was already possible for decades and the governments didn't mind that as much.

Users that send too many encrypted blobs can simply be banned by platforms as suspicious (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's happening already). Exchanging files is easiest to detect by centralized platforms and hardest to do efficiently with good delivery assurances in reasonably anonymous decentralized systems.

[stonepresto]

Not to mention those same bad actors will gladly risk going after those keys. Given the track record of government organizations' secure storage of data, I think it's likely they would succeed.