This is a comment. For reasons I will not link to the source. > Court ordered a privacy-focused email provider to install a backdoor for the government --- Actually this is a totally natural process. The governmental machine is slow, but sooner or later it begins to function. All the constitutions state that not only do the citizens have a right to the secrecy of correspondence, but that the government can violate it through court orders. It was simple in the pre-computer era: the government could, as needed, break open the seals on letters though the majority of citizens didn't care. The more paranoid or commercially concerned among them used ciphers, yet these ciphers were for 'civil use' and usually protected well against unintended observers, and were accessible to deciphering by the 'agencies'. The government usually didn't abuse their right to it nor abuse the received information, i.e. it stayed within the 'agencies' unless for cases turning legal. Then came the internet and tools with strong ciphers. At first they tried to ban those, thinking the old way, but it calmed down for some time because using ciphers required extra effort and most users did not care enough to use them. Thus the situation returned into the 'civil compromise'. But then the companies began to deploy strong end-to-end encryption en masse, and the compromise ('we read, but not act on it, unless it's a crime, so it doesn't affect you') was broken and broken massively not to the government's advantage. Currently this massive governmental machine begins to take steps to restore the balance. I'm not just talking about China. First, Australia (who not only forced you to install backdoors, but forbid the canary notices.) Currently there're ongoing discussions in some EU countries. I believe the question is not, whether they're going to outlaw it or not, but to what extent they will. Sure, the few computer freaks are going to encrypt every email with a strong cipher even for simple matters as the grocery list. They are not the target of concern for the governments because their recipients are equal freaks, who are not bothered by having an extra step of decryption, and secondly, alone the fact of using encryption may be used as a red flag to initiate a check of their personas (which after checking and seeing their peacefulness will just close and shut the case). However all of the drug dealers akin to the users of EncroChat are going to have a harder life. I think the selling and the ownership of such a device is going to be considered enough of a reason to start off a prosecution. Here's an example: if you're going to own a gun, you can only do that having a license, on the government's terms. And should you decide to violate all the official procedures and commit a crime then you're gonna have to pay extra for that act of violation. On the other hand if you decide to keep your grandparent's gun in a stash at home nobody knows about, then the government is probably going to leave you alone. PS: I'm not saying I like this outlook and neither claim to be completely in the right. It'd be interesting to read those who disagree with me and how according to them should the government implement their surveillance features, to persecute drug supply chains or child pornography, to not only convict the end users but also the distributors? Or find someone who's sending out death threats? Maybe the threats aren't dangerous per se, but what if the writer is going to act on it? Are you going to stick your head in the sand like 'we are going to pick up on the case after it happens'?