As is the case everywhere, they claim to want lawful access. In reality that's a minor point, what they really want is access to information without the knowledge of its owner. They're OK with needing approval or getting a warrant to read your email just as long as it's some 3rd party granting access so you won't know. Otherwise just get a warrant for Alice and Bob's email and compel them to decrypt it. No new laws or systems are actually required for that.
Of course nobody will ever examine the warrants or the approval process to ensure that "lawful access" is only granted when even the minimal evidentiary standards they require are met. And if they do someday examine those warrants, and find out that they are riddled with falsehoods and inaccuracies that resulted in unlawful spying, it will all be swept under the rug and nobody responsible will be held to legal account - as we have seen in the US.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824510255/justice-department-...
Yet another reason they dont want to serve warrants directly on individuals. If people know it's happening they'll question it and make public anything corrupt in the process.
This means if not actively supporting a candidate or current representative who shares your views that you instead convince them your view is worthwhile. If not actively finding one who does. Then even once that is accomplished you likely will need to be involved in writing to other representatives as well and coordinating with similarly minded groups across your country.
Politics is all about the networking to get enough voices to be heard and for something as arcane as encryption; and yes it is arcane for most; will not have as many groups focused on it. So your work is cut out for yourself in finding such groups or forming one.
in the US we have EFF and others; I am found of cato but many here do not understand libertarians. the truly sad part is most people really would be happy living in a police state as long as you don't call it one. they don't recognize how they could be in one because their view of what a police state is very heavily influenced by the media and even hollywood. most of what hollywood presents is truly exaggerated dystopian types that are borderline absurd but in truth it is the slow chipping away if not giving away of rights that does the same
There doesn't appear to be an emotional argument the other way - I guess "so you're happy with random police officers[0] browsing your nudes, then?".
It needs to be framed as an emotional argument, because that's what cuts through to the audience these days. Only HN is interested in logical discussions ;)
[0] Actually, not even police officers - there is always an escalation of government departments able to access data that was originally captured to prevent serious crime.
Your kids’ photos.
Many people don’t have nudes on their phones. Most people do have photos of their kids and know their kids have sensitive photos of themselves. “Think of the children” can be flipped if you can get the public suspicious of spooks.
I agree with your point, but I think a lot of people aren't actually too worried about the specific case of random police officers seeing their nude selfies.
It'll start out with "we only need to break your e2e encryption for serious crime cases", but in 10 years your local council will be breaking into your dm's to see if you used the right recycling bin.
The problem with applying this is that the violation of privacy is not arbitrary, from the draft:
> Law enforcement and judicial authorities must be able to access data in a lawful and targeted manner
So this is framed as an matter of lawful and targeted intercept, not blanket bulk access, like pretty much all of the mass surveillance creep.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/