> The degree of difficulty involved in decrypting bespoke devices that have been designed and marketed exclusively for criminal purposes is even higher and presents further challenges to digital forensics departments across the Member States.
Since devices marketed exclusively for criminal purposes are hard to break into, lets make all the other devices easy to break into. Great logic.
Well, besides their handling of the former bloc countries post-Soviet dissolution. That was pretty clutch.
And the DMA/DSA too, both of those are some ballsy consumer protections. The flaccid CEOs in America would blackball that before it hit the ticket.
The security guarantees are rather spiffy too, and you can't deny they've got a competitive trade policy. Redundant weapons suppliers are also important ever since America started backdooring F-35s and F-16s. Plus their regional wines are really quite tasty and cheap when enjoyed domestically.
But besides all those things, what has the EU ever done for us?
> Conducting a comprehensive mapping of the current legislation in Member States to detail the legal responsibilities of digital hardware and software manufacturers to comply with data requests from law enforcement. It would also take into account specific scenarios and requirements that compel companies to access devices, in compliance also with CJEU case-law and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The goal should be to develop an EU-level handbook on that basis, and depending on the aforementioned mapping, to promote the approximation of legislation within this area, and to develop binding industry standards for devices brought to market in the EU, to integrate lawful access.
Since devices marketed exclusively for criminal purposes are hard to break into, lets make all the other devices easy to break into. Great logic.