Why does this matter? In advocacy, we obsess about impact. A key indicator is when people start using our arguments. It means our message is breaking through. 2/
Netherlands: "We need to carefully assess all the implications, especially concerning fundamental rights and digital resilience...which is why the...government cannot support the general approach.” 13/
It's a major win when your arguments become intuitive and unassailable. That's the long-term impact we strive for. Let's end the crypto wars and protect strong encryption! 14/
Slovenia: The "solution still constitutes a form of surveillance of...all users...on the likelihood that a...service can be used or misused...a disproportionate interference into the right of privacy..." 12/
Austria: Flagged "data protection concerns raised by the...parliament" urging the proposal be "reworked to be in conformity with data protection and constitutional law.” 10/
Poland: Warned: "We have bad experiences...regarding infringing on the privacy of correspondence" and "general scanning...could be abused for other purposes." 9/
Luxembourg: Opposed, citing "indiscriminate surveillance that would apply to all users" violating "the proportionality...of our charter of fundamental rights.” 7/
Back to tech policy: the Hungarian Presidency tried to pass legislation undermining end-to-end encryption, as the Global Encryption Coalition points out. 4/
The Hungarian Presidency's push for a final vote backfired, playing into the hands of strong encryption defenders. EU member states had to state their position publicly. 5/
Here, I take inspiration from hip-hop; as @yg says, "my enemies sing my songs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aMZuwSS2VU It's a sign of real mind-share when decision-makers are convinced by your arguments (friend or foe). 3/