Whoever wrote: "at the same time upholding the possibility for competent authorities in the area of security and criminal justice to lawfully access relevant data for legitimate, clearly defined purposes in fighting serious and/or organized crimes and terrorism, including in the digital world, and upholding the rule of law, are extremely important".
Either said person doesn't understand end-to-end encryption, or they don't want end-to-end encryption but mere encryption, with keys shared here and there...
Either way I don't understand how the text you pasted intends to "strike the balance" when e2ee is present. Either they're talking about backdoors or they're in fantasyland
>Technical solutions for gaining access to encrypted data must comply with...
They do say:
>there should be no single prescribed technical solution to provide access to encrypted data.
But it's perfectly clear the assumption is that they intend law enforcement to have access to all encrypted data, given the various caveats about doing so legally.
They do mention privacy, but all that means is not making user data public. They make no mention of a right to maintain data private from the government or law enforcement.
I am not arguing that this is desirable, but I do acknowledge that investigators may need help to navigate modern technology.
> Technical solutions for gaining access to encrypted data must comply withthe principles of legality, transparency, necessity and proportionalityincluding protection of personal data by design and by default.
Consider this section from the resolution:
See https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13084-2020-...