This is from 2025. I don't know why someone has seen fit to repost it again in 2026.... I'm guessing they didn't look at the date.

And lots of people here are spouting FUD.

In the ensuing period, the EU took expert advice later in 2025, and as they say in an update a few months later in June 2025[1]:

    The High-Level Group recommended taking a cautious approach to designing solutions for lawful access to systems, whereby industry should not be asked to integrate systems that are likely to weaken encryption in a generalised or systemic way for all users of a service. Lawful access to data must remain targeted and limited to specific communications on a case-by-case basis.

   As a general rule, any solutions should be implemented based on clear standards that are developed with input from all stakeholders, including industry representatives, data protection, privacy and cybersecurity experts, and law enforcement practitioners. However, caution is warranted when dealing with encryption, as underlined by the High-Level Group.

It is instead quite clear from the above that the experts are on "our" side AND the EU are listening to them.

Instead, all these publications are just a reflection of a democratic process of discussing modern threats. The documents clearly mention "terrorism, organised crime, online fraud, drug trafficking, child sexual abuse, online sexual extortion, ransomware".

So it is only fair and reasonable that politicians should be discussing ways to counter these threats. And quite honestly they would not be doing their job if someone did not MENTION "encryption" and ask "the question" to the experts and other stakeholders.

The fact they are DISCUSSING "encryption" does not automatically mean they want to backdoor it.

I know it is alien to people in the US under the present administration, but this is how proper politics works. You openly discuss issues of the day, you seek opinions from stakeholders and experts, rinse and repeat until you make a decision (or not). The present US administration could do with learning a thing or two. ;)

People here need to rein in the FUD.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

Thank you, should be top comment.

The OP/submitter's history basically looks what I expect coming from a US or Russian propaganda bot.