The article is a lot more nuanced than the title or what most folks are discussing in comments. France has politicians voting in both directions and thus far the "keep encryption and enshrine it in law" side is ahead slightly.
> Senator Olivier Cadic, of the Centrist Union, secured an amendment to a separate bill on critical infrastructure resilience and cybersecurity that would do the opposite, writing encryption protection into French law and prohibiting any obligation on messaging services to install backdoors. The Senate adopted it in March 2025.
alkindiffie 46 minutes ago [-]
So in France you will not be able to send your friend gibberish text that only you and your friend understand. Will they also ban the ability to make new languages that only you and your friends understand. Will they also ban whispering?
tonis2 35 minutes ago [-]
Yes, to protect the children ofcourse.
9 minutes ago [-]
motbus3 7 minutes ago [-]
I wonder if they remove encryption how can they ensure who are the authors.
Will they still apply all the certificates?
hilbert42 5 hours ago [-]
Seems to me we're going to have to let the anti-encryption mob have their way until things go wrong—bigtime. No amount of expert advice will convince them until they witness firsthand the negative consequences of weakening encryption.
It's only afterwards and as a consequence some highly
newsworthy disasters occur such as a child abduction or political sex scandal involving a high profile politician come to light that the lay public will get the message that weak encryption is effectively no encryption.
In the meantime criminals will be early adopters of more sophisticated messaging such as steganography.
mrkeen 16 minutes ago [-]
I don't think I've ever seen a consequence (from a legislator's POV.)
If someone does a high-profile enough hack, that can only mean more laws and increased police power to target it.
xingped 4 hours ago [-]
Would be nice, but you know they'll carve out exceptions for themselves or use "unauthorized" messaging channels regardless with no consequences. It is _always_ "rules for thee, not for me" with politicians.
nerdsniper 38 minutes ago [-]
This is generally my opinion on accelerationism as a solution to concerning trends:
> until they witness firsthand the negative consequences of weakening encryption.
They won't be affected.
The hitherto invisible but very real wall between social classes is just going to become more visible for "First World" civilians the way it's been in "lesser" countries for decades already.
Actual "criminals" have always been able to get around all the restrictions ever put in place since the dawn of civilization, it's just the common folk that get trodded on and kept in their place.
Mars008 4 hours ago [-]
> Seems to me we're going to have to let the anti-encryption mob have their way until things go wrong—bigtime.
Been there, seen that. That's how Pakistan got nuclear bomb. France was just making friends.
BrenBarn 3 hours ago [-]
In most cases I think the revelation of a scandal involving a high-profile politician would be a good thing. (That is, better than it remaining secret.)
flowerthoughts 1 hours ago [-]
To be fair, the EU governments led the way to an unencrypted future with TETRA and the broken TEA1 encryption scheme. They're just giving back freedom and openness to the people now. /s
leonidasrup 52 minutes ago [-]
Weakening of encryption standards is much older than that.
Weakening of the DES encryption by US goverment in 1970s
"Security researcher Ross Anderson reported in 1994 that "there was a terrific row between the NATO signal intelligence agencies in the mid-1980s over whether GSM encryption should be strong or not. The Germans said it should be, as they shared a long border with the Warsaw Pact; but the other countries didn't feel this way, and the algorithm as now fielded is a French design."
Did you just openly call for political assassination of French lawmakers in a public forum?
petre 59 minutes ago [-]
This sounds a bit like Lenin. We know it doesn't work because in the power void created a worse opressor will flourish.
How about I take my business to Ireland if you ban encryption or avoid taxes that fund your paycheck, as an individual?
heinrich5991 8 hours ago [-]
This article incorrectly implies that Telegram is end-to-end encrypted, by putting it in the same line as WhatsApp and Signal.
Telegram doesn't even try to be end-to-end-encrypted by default. WhatsApp claims to be end-to-end-encrypted, but it's not open-source, Signal is end-to-end-encrypted.
riedel 2 hours ago [-]
Open source would not help without the reproducible builds of Signal (I wonder who check them on each release?). And only builds like Molly include no binary blobs of Google [1], which could IMHO at least be used to extract some metadata. Leaving the OS still as a risk, even for Molly or Matrix clients. Even with transparency around linked devices, I would believe that few people would notice silently linked devices. Simplest thing is I guess social engineering which happened in a coordinated attack on Signal messagers of German politicians recently (I guess there should be an official signal app version not supporting linked devices for such people) [2].
Politicians should probably not use Signal but something that is controlled by the government and for example doesn’t allow „accidentally“ deleting incriminating messages.
hellcow 6 hours ago [-]
> WhatsApp claims to be end-to-end-encrypted, but it's not open-source
And explicitly does not encrypt metadata.
Meanwhile NSA top brass publicly stated, "We kill people based on metadata."
2ndorderthought 6 hours ago [-]
I imagine in 2027 people will be getting killed over vibes.
Does make you wonder what kind of people they kill or how many. I can't think of a lot of crimes whose metadata warrants being killed for personally.
xethos 5 hours ago [-]
> I can't think of a lot of crimes whose metadata warrants being killed for personally
You're (literally) missing links then. If A is a high-value target that we look at closely (because they're a high-value target), what if B frequently contacts A? If C, D, and E always recieve messages from B immediately following A messaging B?
What about times? Is B messaging F at a consistant time, and never outside of that? Is A only messaging G, at a set time, with G's phone immediately being put into (ineffective) airplane mode immediately before and after?
Facebook built their business on the social graph, but the CIA's been at this for decades
2ndorderthought 5 hours ago [-]
Thanks for explaining. I guess we are talking about espionage or something like that. I've been so focused on the rise of domestic surveillance lately that I forgot about the noncitizen aspects. Which is ridiculous but at the same time, it does seem like a trillion dollar focus lately.
xethos 4 hours ago [-]
My examples are all based on the CIA and NSA playbook though, as it was the NSA director that said the quiet part out loud, explicitly, in front of Congress. The NSA is effectively America's red team, an offensive arm, meaning they (should be) focused on threats (percieved or otherwise) outside the country
The FBI has been much quieter about this though - there has yet to be a Snowden-for-the-FBI, though they would be one of the agencies I would fully expect to be doing similar work domestically.
As this becomes more well-known, I would expect state and county police to start looking into data and metadata as well. In some cases, they already are [0] - even if some aspects of that case are less relevant today (Google Maps no longer uploads location history, though cell tower trilateration is getting more accurate, not less).
It's far more prevalent than most people realize, though I invite you to consider which you'd rather have when building a second-by-second profile of a person's life: the message contents, or the metadata?
Metadata would be more powerful in 9 out of 10 cases. Message contents could be invaluable in some cases too. Interesting to think about
tardedmeme 4 hours ago [-]
Isn't this already happening? It's why the war department uses ChatGPT and Claude to target drone strikes. It's why Anthropic had to make a public scene to pretend that wasn't happening.
Projectiboga 5 hours ago [-]
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime, also known as crimethink in the official language of Newspeak, is the offense of thinking in ways not approved by the ruling Ingsoc party. It describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds politically unacceptable thoughts; thus the government of The Party controls the speech, actions, and thoughts of the citizens of Oceania.
It's a great book! It does make you wonder what s future with neural link and data centers in every city looks like under a fascist regime.
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
> Meanwhile NSA top brass publicly stated, "We kill people based on metadata.
Can someone post a link to that?
LarsKrimi 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe just search for it and pick a source you trust. Take the search term "kill people based on metadata" and no noise comes up, just tons of articles about General Hayden's interview and related
5 minutes ago [-]
wolvoleo 5 hours ago [-]
Yes and the secret chats in telegram are super clumsy. Both parties need to be online at the same time for the key exchange, it only works on one device at each side. Nobody I know uses them.
I sent some people a password reset through them but half of them couldn't get their head around it.
So yeah while it has secret chats, they aren't very useful at all.
em-bee 5 hours ago [-]
telegram may not be end-to-end encrypted by default but it does support end-to-end encryption. the generous reading is that this encryption, if used, should be broken.
so as i read it the article doesn't suggest that all of telegram is end-to-end encrypted only that it has support for it.
amarant 6 hours ago [-]
I'm starting to think we need to make encryption a protected class, so that we can label speaking against it as hate speech.
Let's start putting some of these politicians in jail for being stupid.
skiing_crawling 5 hours ago [-]
How will they know what's encrypted? Maybe I just like sending random sequences of bytes across the wire
sufficientsoup 4 hours ago [-]
It doesn't even need to be random. What if you send an instance of a proprietary file format? Is the company required to share the spec and toolchain so that the govt can verify it (probably) isn't an encrypted message?
vkou 4 hours ago [-]
I'm sure the judge will love your explanation.
tardedmeme 4 hours ago [-]
In my home directory is a 4GB random file. I suggest you should do this too. Vary the filename to taste. Some suggestions: the name of any active drug market or cyber threat actor.
ZetsuBouKyo 3 hours ago [-]
I remember a joke where a guy sent a joke to another via private message, and Xi Jinping laughed. It seems the government's mindset is the same everywhere.
sublimefire 7 hours ago [-]
Some people do not take no for an answer. This is bordering on absurd.
But on the other side what I miss is some explanation if forensic analysis helps here? Presumably the messages stay on a phone and you can recover them. If that is the case then it should be enough to fight the crime, i.e if you get a warrant to access the device then you can access messages, which I believe many would agree is fine.
nazcan 5 hours ago [-]
I still don't understand the note that the companies can't decrypt the messages with e2e encryption. Isn't it as simple as a software update that says:
"If user = foo, then send the on device keys elsewhere"?
Or if those keys are part of a TPM, then a software update that just asks it to send in the decrypted messages?
Can judges not order this now, but can order decryption if the keys are stored centrally?
bsaul 2 hours ago [-]
of course, nothing magically prevents the app from sending keys or decrypted content to a third party.
That's why if you're really serious about e2ee you have to install the app from source.
antiframe 30 minutes ago [-]
I like to co-opt the expression: not your keys, not your privacy.
budududuroiu 4 hours ago [-]
I'll repeat this over and over:
Most EU politicians are aware of needing to lead from positions of deep unpopularity for the next 10-20 years, they're just setting the stage to have the tools to suppress dissent at their disposal. After encryption, my bet is on reduced rights to protest (see UK wanting to ban protests that repeatedly "cause disruption").
leonidasrup 19 minutes ago [-]
EU politicians are still more popular than Russian politicians.
iamnothere 5 hours ago [-]
Time to teach all your friends how to use a one-time pad. Could be a fun hobby for those with the right inclination.
qingcharles 27 minutes ago [-]
It's not clear that this would be a legal workaround. Even texting in rare languages, like those in Egyptian hieroglyphs, or perhaps Klingon, might warrant a knock on your door.
uriahlight 6 hours ago [-]
"The excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case with freedom, which in a democracy often descends into anarchy... The excessive liberty of the individual in a democracy eventually leads to a desire for authoritarian rule, and out of that desire, the tyrant arises." - Plato's Republic
dweinus 2 hours ago [-]
No fair, we didn't even get the fun anarchy part before skipping right on to tyrrany!
wewewedxfgdf 5 hours ago [-]
But not for French politicians and military, am I right?
Encryption for me not for thee?
pessimizer 7 hours ago [-]
> Mass surveillance, of course, isn’t what the delegation is proposing. The fear isn’t that a French investigator will read every WhatsApp message.
French investigators won't care about every WhatsApp message. But they definitely will slurp them all up, process them all with AI, and read them whenever they have an interest. And they will deny they are doing this as they do this.
It'd be interesting (horrifying?) to see something that was once assumed secret go public. Imagine if all chats and payments eventually went public at some point... the Transparity, when nothing can be encrypted anymore so no one tries. Mankind becomes a unit - or it devolves?
With TON, perhaps altcoins will give way to micro coins - tailored especially for apps and their users/founders? ..for micropayments and running on AI infrastructure. Blockchain and AI infrastructure are already interchangeable in large part. So if transaction histories are exposed, the damage is limited. Startups won't look to IPO, they'll look to float a coin to make serious money. Binance did it. Polymarket next? Poly is dominated by Bitcoin as it stands.
I'm not sure if Ethereum tokens would be the same thing.
fn-mote 5 hours ago [-]
> […] something that was once assumed secret go public. Imagine if all chats and […] went public
I strongly suspect instead that you would see Polymarket-style insider trading by the few powerful people who have access to the secrets.
adrianwaj 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah, you would also have to trust Poly staff and media outlets.
But also messaging platforms whereby wiretapping has never been so lucrative.
Time to get friendly with the 'tappers or become one oneself, right?
This news story is so pertinent.
Doctor Evil's secret AI prompt >> Train on messaging and then tell me the most lucrative bets in the prediction markets.
croes 6 hours ago [-]
Let’s start with the smartphones of politicians.
wolvoleo 5 hours ago [-]
They already excluded themselves in the chatcontrol proposals. Typical.
fithisux 2 hours ago [-]
A public ballot should be held for this.
Governments act as kings.
sMarsIntruder 1 hours ago [-]
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.. et Surveillance-té
jmclnx 7 hours ago [-]
Lets pretend this happens, I am curious how it would work.
So a person in Canada messages someone in France who's WhatsApp is not encrypted. But the message from Canada is encrypted. Will the person in Canada's message have to be sent unencrypted ? Or will WhatsApp Canada need to allow France to break Canada's encryption ?
Personally I think it would be easier for these apps to ban people in France from using their service.
EMIRELADERO 7 hours ago [-]
They would have used the "ghost user" strategy.
> "Perrin now offers a different framing. “Article 8 ter, which I had adopted, was not at all aimed at obtaining encryption keys but at introducing a ghost participant into a conversation before encryption,” he says. The “ghost participant” approach, sometimes called a ghost user proposal, was floated by GCHQ in 2018 and rejected by every major privacy organization, civil liberties group, and security researcher who looked at it. The idea is that the platform silently adds a third recipient, an invisible intelligence agent, to a supposedly two-person conversation. Users never see them. The encryption technically still works, except that one of the parties is the state."
EGreg 6 hours ago [-]
One of many simultaneous attempts all around the world:
And by the way, this article mentions other things already in place, such as being able to commandeer your device and spy on it without breaking encryption:
I find it fascinating that a country with citizens that are typically willing to protest in the streets at the drop of a hat don't seem to care. Is it that they aren't technically literate?
tensor 7 hours ago [-]
These sorts of laws have repeatedly failed to pass in Europe due to people protesting. The government just keeps coming back and trying again it seems.
What makes you think French citizens don’t care?
HerbManic 5 hours ago [-]
I do think they care but you hit on a point. Governments just keep trying to force this and eventually wear down the resistance to it. They can try repeatedly as it only has to work once.
tensor 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah, this feels like an exploit used by many governments these days. You see the same thing in the US where the Republicans just keep filing appeals or lawsuits until they eventually get what they want. Over and over and over and over.
Governments should probably adopt some sort of "retry" limit for these things. Good luck getting that passed though I suppose.
vkou 4 hours ago [-]
That would just be abused by people who want to permanently enshrine a bad status quo. They'll file X really shitty, bad faith challenges, and when they all fail, everyone will be permanently stuck with a bad thing.
Imagine if women's suffrage failed 5 times, and hey, guess we'll never get it, 5 times is the limit.
novok 5 hours ago [-]
It's because it doesn't break the political and financial careers of the people who do in the civil service and the politicians. Once it does, you'll see it is not repeated.
Prop 13 in California is an amazing example of this, known as a third rail political issue because it "kills" the politicians who attack it directly. It doesn't even approach even getting put up as a proposition or bill directly. It has a tight feedback loop because the most mobilized voting class, the olds, feel it immediately and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association mobilizes immediately also. So they go for it on the sides, for things like commercial property, or complicated to understand inheritance and so on.
So if you really want to fight back and be effective, you have to (politically) destroy the careers of those who do.
Has anyone else noticed a tendency of American users to turn every conversation that isn't about America into one about America?
It would be super neat to not see this turn into yet another conversation about American tax policy.
userbinator 7 hours ago [-]
Maybe it's time for France to reconsider its relationship with the EU.
Georgelemental 4 hours ago [-]
The French people did consider that, in the referendum on Maastricht. The politicians ignored the results
palata 6 hours ago [-]
The French people typically elect far-right politicians to represent them at the EU level, so...
userbinator 6 hours ago [-]
It's not about left or right, but up and down.
tardedmeme 5 hours ago [-]
Which are also known as right and left, respectively.
What, did you think right and left were arbitrary? The words are arbitrary, but the meanings are not. They correlate quite strongly with the material interests of the up and down.
novok 5 hours ago [-]
Stalin & Mao would like to have a word with you.
tardedmeme 4 hours ago [-]
... okay? I thought they were dead. What about the entire rest of the world that is left or right. We're not stuck between a choice of Staln (left), and Htler (right) - there are more reasonable people in the world, even more reasonable politicians.
0dayz 6 hours ago [-]
That makes little sense if you know some basic political science, the EU is comprised of different political interest groups just like your country is.
Unless you literally belive everyone in the EU belive the exact same thing and there's zero disagreements what do ever.
shakow 6 hours ago [-]
Kind of, at least in France? Our privacy-nefarious laws have been passed by both left- and right-leaning governments. It seems that if there is something the elite agrees upon, it is that the plebeians should be kept in check.
0dayz 6 hours ago [-]
This is France pushing this onto themselves?
esseph 5 hours ago [-]
> Is it that they aren't technically literate?
Few are, that is a huge part of it. Most have far more pressing concerns.
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
With the first link, the chain is forged.
We're into way many links already.
Isn't this the country that beheaded their rulers?
Mars008 4 hours ago [-]
The big problem here is that Veracrypt development is done there if I'm not mistaken. Probably time to get back to trusted old TrueCrypt.
idiotsecant 5 hours ago [-]
The world needs frontiers or stuff like this is the natural state.
TacticalCoder 7 hours ago [-]
To make the link with another very successful article on HN today: who is Franced rule by yet? By cyber-libertarians right?
31337Logic 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wolvoleo 5 hours ago [-]
I wish it was just France. That's the problem.
Rendered at 06:42:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
> Senator Olivier Cadic, of the Centrist Union, secured an amendment to a separate bill on critical infrastructure resilience and cybersecurity that would do the opposite, writing encryption protection into French law and prohibiting any obligation on messaging services to install backdoors. The Senate adopted it in March 2025.
It's only afterwards and as a consequence some highly newsworthy disasters occur such as a child abduction or political sex scandal involving a high profile politician come to light that the lay public will get the message that weak encryption is effectively no encryption.
In the meantime criminals will be early adopters of more sophisticated messaging such as steganography.
If someone does a high-profile enough hack, that can only mean more laws and increased police power to target it.
https://thebad.website/comic/accelerationism
They won't be affected.
The hitherto invisible but very real wall between social classes is just going to become more visible for "First World" civilians the way it's been in "lesser" countries for decades already.
Actual "criminals" have always been able to get around all the restrictions ever put in place since the dawn of civilization, it's just the common folk that get trodded on and kept in their place.
Been there, seen that. That's how Pakistan got nuclear bomb. France was just making friends.
Weakening of the DES encryption by US goverment in 1970s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard
The GSM encryption from 1990s
"Security researcher Ross Anderson reported in 1994 that "there was a terrific row between the NATO signal intelligence agencies in the mid-1980s over whether GSM encryption should be strong or not. The Germans said it should be, as they shared a long border with the Warsaw Pact; but the other countries didn't feel this way, and the algorithm as now fielded is a French design."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5/1
How about I take my business to Ireland if you ban encryption or avoid taxes that fund your paycheck, as an individual?
Telegram doesn't even try to be end-to-end-encrypted by default. WhatsApp claims to be end-to-end-encrypted, but it's not open-source, Signal is end-to-end-encrypted.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46081855 [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/hackers-attack-phone-of-germ...
And explicitly does not encrypt metadata.
Meanwhile NSA top brass publicly stated, "We kill people based on metadata."
Does make you wonder what kind of people they kill or how many. I can't think of a lot of crimes whose metadata warrants being killed for personally.
You're (literally) missing links then. If A is a high-value target that we look at closely (because they're a high-value target), what if B frequently contacts A? If C, D, and E always recieve messages from B immediately following A messaging B?
What about times? Is B messaging F at a consistant time, and never outside of that? Is A only messaging G, at a set time, with G's phone immediately being put into (ineffective) airplane mode immediately before and after?
Facebook built their business on the social graph, but the CIA's been at this for decades
The FBI has been much quieter about this though - there has yet to be a Snowden-for-the-FBI, though they would be one of the agencies I would fully expect to be doing similar work domestically.
As this becomes more well-known, I would expect state and county police to start looking into data and metadata as well. In some cases, they already are [0] - even if some aspects of that case are less relevant today (Google Maps no longer uploads location history, though cell tower trilateration is getting more accurate, not less).
It's far more prevalent than most people realize, though I invite you to consider which you'd rather have when building a second-by-second profile of a person's life: the message contents, or the metadata?
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/find-my-iphone-arson-case/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
Can someone post a link to that?
I sent some people a password reset through them but half of them couldn't get their head around it.
So yeah while it has secret chats, they aren't very useful at all.
so as i read it the article doesn't suggest that all of telegram is end-to-end encrypted only that it has support for it.
Let's start putting some of these politicians in jail for being stupid.
But on the other side what I miss is some explanation if forensic analysis helps here? Presumably the messages stay on a phone and you can recover them. If that is the case then it should be enough to fight the crime, i.e if you get a warrant to access the device then you can access messages, which I believe many would agree is fine.
"If user = foo, then send the on device keys elsewhere"?
Or if those keys are part of a TPM, then a software update that just asks it to send in the decrypted messages?
Can judges not order this now, but can order decryption if the keys are stored centrally?
That's why if you're really serious about e2ee you have to install the app from source.
Most EU politicians are aware of needing to lead from positions of deep unpopularity for the next 10-20 years, they're just setting the stage to have the tools to suppress dissent at their disposal. After encryption, my bet is on reduced rights to protest (see UK wanting to ban protests that repeatedly "cause disruption").
Encryption for me not for thee?
French investigators won't care about every WhatsApp message. But they definitely will slurp them all up, process them all with AI, and read them whenever they have an interest. And they will deny they are doing this as they do this.
It'd be interesting (horrifying?) to see something that was once assumed secret go public. Imagine if all chats and payments eventually went public at some point... the Transparity, when nothing can be encrypted anymore so no one tries. Mankind becomes a unit - or it devolves?
With TON, perhaps altcoins will give way to micro coins - tailored especially for apps and their users/founders? ..for micropayments and running on AI infrastructure. Blockchain and AI infrastructure are already interchangeable in large part. So if transaction histories are exposed, the damage is limited. Startups won't look to IPO, they'll look to float a coin to make serious money. Binance did it. Polymarket next? Poly is dominated by Bitcoin as it stands.
I'm not sure if Ethereum tokens would be the same thing.
I strongly suspect instead that you would see Polymarket-style insider trading by the few powerful people who have access to the secrets.
But also messaging platforms whereby wiretapping has never been so lucrative.
So what's the CEO of ____ saying about an IPO?
https://kalshi.com/markets/kxipo/ipos/kxipo-26
Time to get friendly with the 'tappers or become one oneself, right?
This news story is so pertinent.
Doctor Evil's secret AI prompt >> Train on messaging and then tell me the most lucrative bets in the prediction markets.
Governments act as kings.
So a person in Canada messages someone in France who's WhatsApp is not encrypted. But the message from Canada is encrypted. Will the person in Canada's message have to be sent unencrypted ? Or will WhatsApp Canada need to allow France to break Canada's encryption ?
Personally I think it would be easier for these apps to ban people in France from using their service.
> "Perrin now offers a different framing. “Article 8 ter, which I had adopted, was not at all aimed at obtaining encryption keys but at introducing a ghost participant into a conversation before encryption,” he says. The “ghost participant” approach, sometimes called a ghost user proposal, was floated by GCHQ in 2018 and rejected by every major privacy organization, civil liberties group, and security researcher who looked at it. The idea is that the platform silently adds a third recipient, an invisible intelligence agent, to a supposedly two-person conversation. Users never see them. The encryption technically still works, except that one of the parties is the state."
https://community.qbix.com/t/the-global-war-on-end-to-end-en...
And by the way, this article mentions other things already in place, such as being able to commandeer your device and spy on it without breaking encryption:
https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc...
What makes you think French citizens don’t care?
Governments should probably adopt some sort of "retry" limit for these things. Good luck getting that passed though I suppose.
Imagine if women's suffrage failed 5 times, and hey, guess we'll never get it, 5 times is the limit.
Prop 13 in California is an amazing example of this, known as a third rail political issue because it "kills" the politicians who attack it directly. It doesn't even approach even getting put up as a proposition or bill directly. It has a tight feedback loop because the most mobilized voting class, the olds, feel it immediately and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association mobilizes immediately also. So they go for it on the sides, for things like commercial property, or complicated to understand inheritance and so on.
So if you really want to fight back and be effective, you have to (politically) destroy the careers of those who do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
It would be super neat to not see this turn into yet another conversation about American tax policy.
What, did you think right and left were arbitrary? The words are arbitrary, but the meanings are not. They correlate quite strongly with the material interests of the up and down.
Unless you literally belive everyone in the EU belive the exact same thing and there's zero disagreements what do ever.
Few are, that is a huge part of it. Most have far more pressing concerns.
We're into way many links already.
Isn't this the country that beheaded their rulers?