A man sits in a coffee shop, typing an email to his daughter abroad. His fingers hover over the send button. He pauses—not because he’s reconsidering his words, but because he’s suddenly aware that between his thoughts and her screen, the state has claimed the right to watch. This moment, repeated billions of times daily across the globe, contains the essential absurdity of our age: we build walls of mathematics to protect our privacy, and governments respond by banning the blueprints.
Last month, a permanent ban on end-to-end encryption went into effect in several Western democracies. What sounds like technical jargon actually answers a profound question: Does anyone—even the state—have the right to read your most private communications? The government says yes, in the name of security. Cryptographers say no, because making encryption backdoored is like designing a lock that only works if you leave a spare key under the mat.
The Absurd Choice We Never Agreed To
Camus wrote about the absurd: the collision between our human need for meaning and a universe that offers none. Technology has created a new absurd. We’re told we’re free to communicate privately, yet the infrastructure of that freedom is being dismantled. We download apps promising “end-to-end encryption”—mathematics so complex that even the company running the server cannot read your messages. Then, a government official announces this is illegal.
The ban targets Signal, ProtonMail, and similar platforms where only sender and recipient hold the decryption key. Law enforcement argues this creates “dark spaces” where criminals hide. But here’s where the absurdity deepens: you cannot create a “backdoor for the good guys.” Mathematics doesn’t care about morality. Break encryption for police, and you break it for hackers, authoritarian regimes, and corporate data brokers too.
Why This Moment Matters Philosophically
This isn’t about whether you have “something to hide.” That’s a trap. Camus would recognize it instantly—the rationalization that leads us to surrender freedom for promised safety. The real question is simpler: Should any entity on Earth have the technical ability to read your private thoughts?
History suggests the answer is no. The Stasi, the KGB, the NSA—totalitarianism doesn’t announce itself. It arrives quietly, justified by each successive crisis. Today’s emergency powers become tomorrow’s permanent infrastructure. Once encryption backdoors exist, no regime change, no new government, can remove them. You’ve handed someone a gun and asked them to promise they’ll never shoot.
The Practical Consequence
Here’s what the ban actually does: it pushes security-conscious people toward unmonitored encryption tools, ironically making criminals harder to trace. Security researchers have shown repeatedly that the most dangerous actors—actual terrorist networks, major cartels—will simply use tools governments can’t ban. The ban catches journalists, dissidents in authoritarian countries, and ordinary people who value privacy.
A doctor messaging a patient about mental health. A lawyer protecting attorney-client privilege. A victim reaching out to a domestic violence shelter. These conversations, mathematically protected, are now technically illegal to shield from government viewing.
The Road Forward Isn’t Certain
Some democracies have already rolled back these bans after realizing the unintended consequences. Others doubled down. The philosophical question—how much freedom should we trade for security—remains unanswered because it’s not actually a technical question. It’s a choice about what kind of society we want to become.
FAQ
Can I still use encrypted messaging apps?
Technically yes, but legality varies by jurisdiction. Many encrypted platforms now face criminal liability. In some regions, they’ve shut down entirely.
If I use encryption, am I doing something wrong?
Not morally. Using math to protect your privacy is neutral. Whether it’s illegal depends on where you live—which itself is the problem.
Will this actually help law enforcement catch criminals?
Evidence suggests no. Serious criminals already use tools governments can’t control. These bans mainly affect people trying to communicate privately within legal frameworks.
One Step Forward
Look at your jurisdiction’s actual encryption laws. Understand what’s permitted where you live, not what companies tell you is private. Then decide: are you comfortable with that arrangement, or does it require you to engage in the democratic process to change it? This is the only realistic action. You cannot legislate mathematics. You can only legislate whether people are allowed to use it—which is fundamentally a political choice, not a technical one.