Thank you for your efforts but I am sorry to say that I am still not convinced.
The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is really dangerous, and the tone is very threatening, but their reasoning is simply not substantial enough to convince me.
I was sad to see that the EFF's very first link to a 'proposal' from the EU commission simply links back to Mr. Breyer's website. (But I am very happy with the letter co-signed by the EFF, which I think is well-written and a lot less alarmist.)
And once you do get to a primary source, in your third link, you can only make your case by rephrasing "security despite encryption", which I can happily interpret as being entirely in line with the direction suggested by the aforementioned letter, as "encryption they can access".
So I remain unconvinced, mainly because your "in other words" really do a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.
Exactly as predicted in this thread it's a "think of the children"
and at the same time also as mentioned by others in this thread, mandated obligations but preparing for the excuse of "we never actually asked for this way of doing it"
"Does the proposal cover encrypted material?"
"The proposed obligations on service providers as regards the detection of child sexual abuse material are technologically neutral, meaning they do not prescribe which technology should be used for detection. It is an obligation of result not of means, leaving to the provider the choice of technology to be operated, subject to its compliance with strict safeguards."
"This includes the use of encryption technology. Encryption is an important tool for the protection of cybersecurity and confidentiality of communications. At the same time, its use as a secure channel could be abused of by criminals to hide their actions, thereby impeding efforts to bring perpetrators of child sexual abuse to justice."
"A large portion of reports of child sexual abuse, which are instrumental to starting investigations and rescuing children, come from services that are already encrypted or may become encrypted in the future. If such services were to be exempt from requirements to protect children and to take action against the circulation of child sexual abuse images and videos via their services, the consequences would be severe for children"
It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism" and another 6 months to be extended to subversive talk on "Vaccine Risk".
If this proposal is ever approved, I am willing to bet you a dinner at any restaurant of your choice, that within two years it will be extended to track terrorism and other subversive activities. After all the principle of mandating all providers, to monitor all communications for specific behaviors will be set by law...
Immediately moving the goalposts and not putting up the stake requested, can I take this as you declining to stand by the quote and thus the bet overall?
The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is really dangerous, and the tone is very threatening, but their reasoning is simply not substantial enough to convince me.
I was sad to see that the EFF's very first link to a 'proposal' from the EU commission simply links back to Mr. Breyer's website. (But I am very happy with the letter co-signed by the EFF, which I think is well-written and a lot less alarmist.)
And once you do get to a primary source, in your third link, you can only make your case by rephrasing "security despite encryption", which I can happily interpret as being entirely in line with the direction suggested by the aforementioned letter, as "encryption they can access".
So I remain unconvinced, mainly because your "in other words" really do a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.