---
date:
    created: 2025-04-01T05:40:00Z
categories:
    - Opinion
tags:
    - April Fools
authors:
    - aprilfools
license: BY-SA
description: Privacy Guides is formally taking a stand against dangerous and frightening technologies.
schema_type: SatiricalArticle
preview:
  logo: blog/assets/images/the-dangers-of-end-to-end-encryption/fire.svg
---
# The Dangers of End-to-End Encryption

![An image showing a burning car](../assets/images/the-dangers-of-end-to-end-encryption/cover.webp)

<small aria-hidden="true">Photo: Flavio / Unsplash</small>

In the digital age, nothing is more important than convenience and easy access to data. Unfortunately, there has been an alarming trend among technologists to implement **End-to-End Encryption** (E2EE) in their applications, to the detriment of all the important work being done by countless organizations, including the best and brightest intelligence agencies and big tech companies.<!-- more -->

<div class="admonition tip inline" markdown>
<p class="admonition-title">April Fools!</p>

This article was published on April 1st, 2025.

Privacy Guides supports strong encryption as a cornerstone of digital security and personal freedom. End-to-end encryption ensures that **your** communications remain **yours**, which is a principle worth preserving.

</div>

Security-focused developers and misguided "advocates" have long attempted to convince those involved in privacy and security that E2EE is an advanced security measure designed to protect your sensitive data, and *Privacy Guides* has stood by for far too long not setting the record straight.

In this article, we are going to explore how these "protections" actually endanger you and pose critical threats to society at large. Threats that are so grave that numerous government agencies around the world insist that we immediately limit or eliminate E2EE entirely, before our world as we know it falls apart.

*Privacy Guides* is acutely aware of these serious concerns, and believes privacy should always be a conditional right, used *responsibly*.

## E2EE hampers *legitimate* government surveillance

Every day, intelligence agencies carry out perfectly legitimate surveillance activities against both their own citizens and foreigners. There is no question that these agencies are crucial to the upkeep of our national security, and it is our moral obligation to assist them in these warrantless activities, whether we know it or not.

When services like [Signal](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/) or [Tuta](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/email/) keep all of their users messages locked in an impenetrable vault, how are they supposed to keep tabs on potential criminals using their services?

The reality is that if the government is not allowed to read *every* message being sent, they might never encounter the *one* that actually warrants suspicion.

It's true that end-to-end encryption also protects the lives of journalists, whistleblowers, and human-rights activists from those few governments which are *actually* oppressive, but these edge-cases should not be used as an excuse to hinder legitimate governments like in the US or the UK.

## E2EE encourages crime

With end-to-end encryption, criminals are granted a free pass for unlimited criminal activity. *Nobody* can read their messages besides them! Shocking, isn't it?

If platforms simply removed all forms of encryption from their services, we could solve cybercrime, illegal drug dealing, dangerous hacking attempts, child exploitation, and terrorism overnight... right?

There is plenty of historical precedent here. Platforms like Snapchat which *don't* utilize end-to-end encryption have bravely been [involved in noble arrests](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68099669), stopping criminals in their tracks before they had a chance to act.

Users of these platforms who aren't criminals do benefit a bit from end-to-end encryption. It protects them from identity theft, surveillance, and data breaches every day. With any sort of trade-off like this, this is certainly a factor to consider. We believe it is very clear that giving up minor protections like this is a small price to pay to potentially intercept the next dangerous joke in a group text.

## It prevents *helpful* backdoors

Many tech companies have tried to [introduce backdoors into their end-to-end encrypted platforms](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life), only to be lambasted by the legion of completely unreasonable "privacy advocates" out there. Our stance on privacy is far more principled, and we believe there is a middle-ground to be found in the laws of mathematics.

The solution proposed by companies like Apple and agencies like the FBI is a sound one. They will protect your messages, *unless* they encounter something suspicious. At that point, keys to decrypt your data will be given **only to the good guys**, so that they can enforce the law.

This approach makes a lot of sense. By carefully controlling access to these skeleton keys, it's trivial for companies to make sure they only fall into the right hands. The notion that they might be leaked, or that someone with enough resources could replicate that access, is so far into slippery slope territory that it borders on nonsense. Let's stick with what we know about the security capabilities of these companies today, instead of imagining ridiculous scenarios where they are breached.

## It harms innovation

Think about all the services you use online every day. The companies behind those services *rely* on collecting as much of your personal data as possible in order to constantly produce exciting new innovations. Without mass data collection, how would you get personalized ads for weeks about different new sneakers, because you bought that pair on Amazon yesterday? How else would companies emulate the real-life experience of constantly being hounded by a salesperson in a store selling you the exact thing you desperately need?

E2EE prevents companies from truly knowing their users, stifling these massive advances in advanced user profiling!

Big tech companies monetizing your personal data in ways that you don't need to understand nor consent to is what makes the internet such a magical place. If your private chats are protected with E2EE, companies won't be able to serve you the moment you even *think* about a new lawnmower. What do you think about that?

## It's challenging for developers

Another way E2EE slows down innovation even in the digital security realm is its complexity. Implementing robust cryptographic libraries and user-friendly key management systems is complicated, and software development is supposed to be a piece of cake.

The problem of digital security has already been solved: simply store that information in a database and protect that database from anyone who isn't approved to see it. Protections beyond this tend to be complexity for the sake of complexity. If we did away with the countless developer hours wasted on protection nobody *really* needs, we'd have more time to add longer animations and innovative features like infinite scrolling to keep users happily using their apps for hours on end.

## E2EE is a slippery slope!

Constantly pushing E2EE sets up consumers with a wildly unreasonable expectation, that privacy should be the default. If people got comfortable communicating without tech companies and governments constantly peeking over their shoulder, it's impossible to imagine what they might start thinking next. Maybe they'd start to believe personal liberty is a right, instead of a *privilege*.

End-to-end encryption is an insidious technology that has crept its way into some of the best instant messengers, [cloud storage providers](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/cloud/), and other apps. It stands in the way of law enforcement, government security agencies, data-collecting corporations, and anyone else who might need to peek into your personal life.

It's time we took a stand against this technology and demand a true solution from our governments: **Sensible** regulations that allow for *partial* protections while keeping the option for these entities to decrypt it when necessary intact. The sense of security is all that truly matters to most people anyway.

[Who needs *complete* privacy](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/why-privacy-matters/) when you can have a half-baked version easily circumvented by the good guys? What is privacy in the first place, if not a convenient cover for wrongdoing? If we can't read all messages (just in case), how are we expected to keep society safe?

---

This article was published on April Fools' Day. If you've made it to the end, and you haven't noticed how we buried the real benefits of end-to-end encryption in our hyperbolic worst-case scenarios, well... surprise! 😄

Privacy Guides supports strong encryption as a cornerstone of digital security and personal freedom. End-to-end encryption ensures that **your** communications remain **yours**, which is a principle worth preserving.

If the "dangers" of E2EE upset you, maybe it is time to reflect on how crucial privacy is to everyone: You, me, whistleblowers, activists, and everyday people who just want to live their lives. Happy April 1st, and stay secure out there!

*Written by: Jonah Aragon*
