Over the past decade, encrypted communication has become a standard for billions worldwide. Platforms like Signal, iMessage, and WhatsApp use default end-to-end encryption, ensuring user privacy. Despite widespread adoption, governments continue pushing for greater access, threatening encryption’s integrity.
Recently, authorities in the UK, France, and Sweden have introduced policies that could weaken encryption, adding to EU and Indian regulatory measures that challenge privacy. Meanwhile, US intelligence agencies, previously critical of encryption, now advocate for its use after major cybersecurity breaches. The shift follows an incident where the China-backed hacking group Salt Typhoon infiltrated US telecom networks. Simultaneously, the second Trump administration is expanding surveillance of undocumented migrants and reassessing intelligence-sharing agreements.
“The trend is bleak,” says Carmela Troncoso, privacy and cryptography researcher at the Max-Planck Institute for Security and Privacy. “New policies are emerging that undermine encryption.”
Law enforcement argues encryption obstructs criminal investigations, leading governments to demand backdoor access to encrypted platforms. Experts warn such access could be exploited by malicious actors, jeopardizing security. Apple, for example, recently withdrew its encrypted iCloud backup system from the UK after receiving a secret government order. The company’s compliance would require creating a backdoor, a move expected to be challenged in court on March 14. Similarly, Sweden is considering laws requiring messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp to retain message copies for law enforcement access, prompting Signal to threaten market exit.
“Some democracies are reverting to crude approaches to circumvent encryption,” says Callum Voge, director of governmental affairs at the Internet Society.
A growing concern is client-side scanning, a technology that scans messages on users’ devices before encryption. While presented as a compromise, experts argue it introduces vulnerabilities. The EU has debated its implementation for years, with some member states advocating stronger encryption while others push for increased surveillance. Apple abandoned a similar initiative after warning that scanning for one type of content could pave the way for mass surveillance.
“Europe is divided, with some countries strongly in favor of scanning and others strongly against it,” says Voge.
Another pressing threat is the potential banning of encrypted services. Russia blocked Signal in 2024, while India’s legal battle with WhatsApp could force the platform to abandon encryption or exit the market. The country has already prohibited multiple VPN services, further limiting digital privacy options.
Despite mounting threats, pro-encryption responses have emerged. The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the FBI have urged encrypted communication use following recent cybersecurity breaches. Sweden’s armed forces also endorse Signal for unclassified communications, recognizing its security benefits.
With the UK’s March 14 legal proceedings over Apple’s backdoor request approaching, US senators and privacy organizations are demanding greater transparency. UK civil rights groups are challenging the confidential nature of such surveillance orders.
“The UK government may have come for Apple today, but tomorrow it could be Google, Microsoft, or even your VPN provider,” warns Privacy International.
Encryption remains fundamental to human rights, safeguarding free speech, secure communication, and data privacy. “Encryption is crucial because it enables a full spectrum of human rights,” says Namrata Maheshwari of Access Now. “It supports privacy, freedom of expression, organization, and association.”
As governments push for greater surveillance, the fight for encryption and privacy continues, shaping the future of digital security worldwide.