> And its users Users are part of that system. If the system in centralized - it's a bus, not a car - if it crashes, everyone get injured. (BTW, should EP mand

> And its users Users are part of that system. If the system in centralized - it's a bus, not a car - if it crashes, everyone get injured. (BTW, should EP mandate distributed architecture or 6-nines SLAs? Reliability is as important as confidentiality.) The real problem is not that communications aren't encrypted or something. It's that users aren't aware what they get and what they don't. > I don't want to be a civil engineering expert Neither do I. But regarding software - I don't need to be an expert to hear "we can't access your messages even if we would want to". Why need government for that? And why make it mandatory? I just don't see your point except for analogies with other professions. What's the point of programming being like car manufacturing? Personally, I want to be informed but free to chose whatever fits my requirements. That doesn't work well for buildings and cars (for the reasons I've mentioned in the parent comment), but that works very well for software. Non-mandatory certifications and attestations works just fine - e.g. we have IM software audited. Interventions may be necessary if no one builds E2E messengers (assuming there is a demand - and there is), or all existing software is unusable. But I don't think the communications software market is that unhealthy. And as I've said before, if someone advertises something as e.g. "100% secure" or "we can't read your messages" but it's false - that's basically a misadvertising.