@ansuz I agree if we consider this to be just "law-enforcement vs criminals".
The problem -as I see it- is that we are now seeing a state-against-state battle, and a war between different models of society.
The question for me is, how do we deal with scenarios where encryption is being used to attack democracy itself, the thing we wanted to protect in the first place. (and probably the prime requirement to see encyption-technology in the hands of normal citizens)
@kristoff that's significantly outside the scope of the chatcontrol legislation I was talking about, but I'll weigh in anyway.
In the US (and a few other places) there was a big deal made about tiktok as a source of foreign spying and manipulation. The US could, in theory, deal with surveillance with a federal privacy law, but that would also affect their domestic avenues for spying (alphabet, meta, etc.).
Australia's privacy commissioner found that tiktok was not in violation of any privacy laws[1], for instance, and that they might want to consider stronger privacy laws.
Instances of banning foreign actors tend to relate more to xenophobia than interest in domestic citizens' well-being.
[1]: https://www.oaic.gov.au/newsroom/statement-on-tiktok-preliminary-inquiries
@kristoff that's significantly outside the scope of the chatcontrol legislation I was talking about, but I'll weigh in anyway.
In the US (and a few other places) there was a big deal made about tiktok as a source of foreign spying and manipulation. The US could, in theory, deal with surveillance with a federal privacy law, but that would also affect their domestic avenues for spying (alphabet, meta, etc.).