I think the title here is overly inflammatory.
To suggest there is a 'fair right' to data behind encryption for goverment use, to my mind, somewhat misses the point of encryption and privacy in general. This is the point I believe we should be arguing.
Your representaiton of the article as a 'declaration against encryption' somewhat undermines this argument, and polarises it into an 'us vs them' debate.
For accuracy, this document is titled:
"Draft Council Declaration on Encryption
- Security through encryption and security despite encryption"
Its pretty handwavy, overly general, and seems to call for some sort of 'back door' from the tech companies. Missing the point really, anybody wishing to use strong encryption for criminal purpoes can do so so with very few resources, and quite independently.
To suggest there is a 'fair right' to data behind encryption for goverment use, to my mind, somewhat misses the point of encryption and privacy in general. This is the point I believe we should be arguing.
Your representaiton of the article as a 'declaration against encryption' somewhat undermines this argument, and polarises it into an 'us vs them' debate.
For accuracy, this document is titled:
"Draft Council Declaration on Encryption - Security through encryption and security despite encryption"
Its pretty handwavy, overly general, and seems to call for some sort of 'back door' from the tech companies. Missing the point really, anybody wishing to use strong encryption for criminal purpoes can do so so with very few resources, and quite independently.