> arguing that "criminals can still use illegal E2EE" is not fruitful. That's why I mentioned 3 points, I would say :-). They go together. They mean that it ma

> arguing that "criminals can still use illegal E2EE" is not fruitful. That's why I mentioned 3 points, I would say :-). They go together. They mean that it makes no sense to say "we want to weaken E2EE for the sake of our children". Either you remove E2EE (and enable mass surveillance), or you don't (and protect the children differently). In those discussions by politicians, there is systematically someone who comes back with an argument like "no, but imagine we could detect child pornography without actually weakening the encryption", and that argument just does not make any sense at all. Decision makers need to understand that, so that they can choose between keeping E2EE and removing E2EE improperly. Then of course, some politicians could try to push for mass surveillance. That's a political stance. But at least they would be having the real debate, instead of hiding it behind weird technical solutions that do not and cannot exist.