The Europol chief, Catherine De Bolle, has called for Big Tech to provide law enforcement with access to encrypted communications, arguing that this is a “social responsibility” akin to allowing police to enter a locked house with a warrant. While this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, it fundamentally misunderstands the role of encryption in modern society and the broader risks of compromising secure communications. Weakening encryption does not just affect criminals—it undermines the security, privacy, and rights of billions of individuals and institutions worldwide.
Encryption is essential for global cybersecurity. It protects sensitive information such as financial transactions, personal data, trade secrets, and even government communications. Banks, for example, rely on encryption to safeguard transactions and prevent cyberattacks. Weakening encryption to give law enforcement access creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by cybercriminals, hostile governments, and malicious hackers. Historical examples, such as the Salt Typhoon attack where Chinese hackers exploited backdoors, demonstrate that once a vulnerability is introduced, it can—and likely will—be misused. Cryptographers have consistently warned that it is technically impossible to create a backdoor that only “good actors” can access. Any compromise to encryption becomes a universal weakness, putting everyone at risk.
The analogy De Bolle uses—comparing encrypted messages to a locked house that police can open with a warrant—is misleading. Allowing police access to a single house with a warrant does not compromise the security of every house in the neighborhood. By contrast, weakening encryption introduces systemic vulnerabilities, akin to providing a master key to all locks. Such a measure would not only endanger private citizens but also critical infrastructure, including hospitals, power grids, and communication networks, all of which rely on encrypted systems for security.
Beyond cybersecurity, encryption and anonymity are crucial for preserving freedom of thought and expression. They enable individuals to explore political, scientific, and religious ideas without fear of surveillance or persecution. For dissidents in authoritarian regimes, encryption can mean the difference between life and death. It provides a safe space for journalists, activists, and whistleblowers to expose corruption and wrongdoing. Even in democratic societies, the erosion of privacy through weakened encryption creates a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from exploring controversial or unconventional ideas. This stifles innovation, free speech, and the open exchange of ideas—key pillars of democracy and progress.
Additionally, anonymity and encryption play an indispensable role in protecting vulnerable groups. LGBTQ+ individuals in hostile environments, survivors of abuse seeking support, and political activists organizing for change all rely on secure communication to stay safe. Without robust encryption, these individuals become easy targets for surveillance, harassment, or worse. Amandine Le Pape, co-founder of the encrypted messaging service Matrix, rightly argues that weakening encryption is a threat to democracy itself, as it enables governments—or even future authoritarian regimes—to spy on their citizens and erode civil liberties.
The necessity of encryption extends even further. In the digital age, secure communication underpins global commerce, healthcare, and even education. From safeguarding online banking and e-commerce to protecting sensitive patient data, encryption is foundational to the functioning of modern society. Weakening it would erode trust in digital systems, driving users to unregulated or underground platforms that are even harder for law enforcement to monitor.
Law enforcement does face real challenges in investigating crimes involving encrypted communication, but existing tools often suffice. Metadata analysis, social media monitoring, open-source intelligence (OSINT), and targeted device hacking are effective investigative methods that do not require breaking encryption. Many successful investigations have used these tools to identify and apprehend criminals without compromising the privacy and security of the broader population. The argument that encryption is an insurmountable obstacle to law enforcement is therefore exaggerated.
Far from protecting democracy, weakening encryption would undermine it. Mass surveillance powers enabled by backdoors create a climate of fear, where individuals are less likely to engage in free expression or dissent. Privacy and security are not luxuries but fundamental rights, enshrined in legal frameworks like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). By protecting these rights, encryption helps ensure a society where individuals can think, speak, and act freely without undue interference.
De Bolle’s argument that Big Tech has a “social responsibility” to weaken encryption misplaces the burden. The true responsibility of tech companies is to protect their users’ data and ensure secure platforms. Weakening encryption would betray that trust, leaving users more vulnerable to cybercrime, identity theft, and espionage. The focus should instead be on targeted, proportionate investigative tools that address crime without compromising the security of billions of innocent users.
Encryption and anonymity are not barriers to justice—they are safeguards for a free, secure, and open society. While the challenges they pose to law enforcement are real, the costs of weakening encryption far outweigh the benefits. To preserve democracy, privacy, and security, encryption must remain strong and uncompromised.
Should anonymity be a fundamental right?
Anonymity should be regarded as a fundamental right because it is essential for protecting individual freedoms, fostering open societies, and safeguarding human dignity. In a world where digital surveillance is increasingly pervasive, anonymity ensures that individuals can express themselves freely without fear of retaliation, persecution, or judgment. It is the foundation upon which other rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the right to privacy, are built. Without anonymity, these rights become hollow, as the fear of being watched can deter people from exercising them fully.
One powerful example of the importance of anonymity lies in its role in enabling dissent and political activism. In authoritarian regimes, activists rely on anonymous platforms to organize protests, expose corruption, and challenge oppressive governments. Without the shield of anonymity, they would be at risk of arrest, torture, or worse. For instance, during the Arab Spring, social media platforms became vital tools for revolutionaries, and their ability to communicate anonymously was crucial in driving political change. Even in democratic societies, anonymity allows citizens to criticize governments, challenge societal norms, and expose injustices without fear of reprisal.
Anonymity also protects vulnerable groups and marginalized communities. Survivors of abuse often need to share their experiences in safe, anonymous spaces to find support and healing. LGBTQ+ individuals in conservative environments may use anonymity to explore their identities or connect with others without risking ostracization or violence. Similarly, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden or Frances Haugen, who exposed mass surveillance and unethical practices, could only bring critical truths to light by maintaining anonymity, at least initially. Without the right to anonymity, many of these voices would remain silent, and critical injustices would go unchallenged.
Another area where anonymity plays a critical role is intellectual exploration. People should be able to freely research and engage with ideas—be they scientific, political, or religious—without being subjected to judgment, scrutiny, or potential punishment. Consider individuals living in countries where certain religious or political ideologies are criminalized. Anonymity allows them to learn, question, and form beliefs without putting their safety at risk. In more everyday contexts, it enables people to discuss controversial or deeply personal topics—such as mental health or addiction—without the stigma that might come from public exposure.
Moreover, anonymity encourages creativity and innovation by allowing individuals to share ideas without fear of being ridiculed or judged. Many of history’s greatest thinkers—Galileo, for example—faced persecution for their groundbreaking ideas. Today, anonymity allows scientists, artists, and thinkers to challenge conventional wisdom and push boundaries without being shackled by societal expectations or institutional constraints.
Critics may argue that anonymity enables harmful behaviors, such as cyberbullying or criminal activity. While these are legitimate concerns, they do not outweigh the broader benefits of anonymity. Such risks can be mitigated through targeted enforcement and robust policies that address harmful actions without compromising the ability of everyone else to remain anonymous. For example, using metadata or behavioral analysis, law enforcement can address illegal activities without requiring the removal of anonymity for all users.
Anonymity should be recognized as a fundamental right because it empowers individuals to act freely and authentically in an increasingly monitored world. It protects the powerless from the powerful, gives a voice to the voiceless, and safeguards the ability to think, speak, and explore without fear. In a society without anonymity, the chilling effect of constant surveillance would suppress dissent, silence marginalized voices, and discourage curiosity and creativity. Anonymity, therefore, is not just a tool for privacy—it is a cornerstone of liberty and human progress.
Leave a Reply