[sakisv]

I think I agree with what I think you're trying to say.

However I don't agree with the repercussions of this, which are the same ones that make all reasonable people, security experts included, oppose EU's ChatControl or the UK's backdoor requests: There is no way to ensure and protect the people that need protection, as there is no way to ensure that only "the good guys" have it.

We tend to bullshit ourselves into believing that because spyware software like Predator are weapons, meaning that only countries would be allowed to buy them and use them (same way that Jeff Bezos cannot buy and use an F-35 for example). We see though, that certain individuals _can_ get their hands on these things and use them however they want.

For example, 3 years ago someone adjacent to the greek government bought and used Predator against MEPs, journalists, army generals, mafia bosses, MPs of opposing parties and even MPs of their own, ruling, party. The greek government of course denied that they did it, and they said that this individual did not act under the instructions of the government (though they then changed the law to prevent anyone for learning details about it, but that's a different story).

So, apart from adopting the same approach as with ChatControl and encryption backdoors, i.e. banning them, I don't know how we could protect ourselves against them.

[tptacek]

I'm an American and am glad of my personal belief that the American system would not allow something like ChatControl by state mandate. I also wouldn't participate in commercial exploit development (even if I was capable of doing so competitively). But I don't think the two things are at all comparable.

[adastra22]

ChatControl has almost happened here in the USA multiple times, and they will try again.