> The proposal does not seek to simply ban encryption.

They're not that dumb. They'll chip away at our rights however they can, gradually, so we hardly even notice.

In the US for instance, there's no way they'll be banning guns overnight. But it's clearly the end goal: they're hoping to reduce death count by making guns disappear, and sacrifice the second amendment in the process. Right now though they're content with an "assault weapons" ban that alone won't work, but is a step towards banning guns. Next time they'll limit ammunitions. Then the places you can carry your gun to. You get the idea.

Conversely, I'm pretty sure the states who are banning abortion in the name of "saving babies" are sticking their head in the sand that such legislation tends to lead to later abortions (like, you know, when the foetus is closer to being an actual human being?), pregnancy related deaths, that kind of thing. But the end goal of some of those people is probably to outlaw any form of contraception, and maybe sex before marriage while we're at it. Like the "good Christians" they are, they are going to make abstinence work. It doesn't (hormone driven young people don't abstain for some reason), but they'll make it work, promise.

Right now the French government is trying to pass a law to increase the legal retirement age. Won't do much, but it's yet a small step in a long series about making us work until we die. The end goal? As far as I can tell this is carrying the neo-liberalism ideology, turning everything into marketable goods. And among them there definitely are people who would love to increase unemployment rates (raising retirement age mechanically does that), so they can negotiate lower salaries and make higher profits (at least in the short term).

That pendulum used to swing the other way: we were lowering the work-week, the retirement age… We were raising the minimum wage. The end goal was clearly to maximise the free time of everyone, and we'll automate everything to further that goal if we need to.

Or the mandatory contributions to various nationalised services, like the hospital, unemployment insurance, or retirement: those are clearly a step towards Socialism with a big "S", where lucrative property (the stuff that give you money just because it's yours) is abolished, workers are in full possession of their own tools, and in the extreme you could go full Communism with guaranteed salary for everyone (though we still need incentives to make sure the necessary work is being done).

---

Most proposed legislations aren't designed or proposed in a vacuum. They're almost part of a more or less coherent ideology, that some people want to push everyone towards. Slippery slope arguments are often valid because there are people out there actively waxing those slopes. Now it would be nice to have a compromise, meet in the middle… but in reality the middle is shifting too. So it's pretty important to identify the ideologies behind proposals, and know which you subscribe to and which you want to fight.

Me, I'm fighting the ideology that says privacy is not such a big deal. Sorry folks, my ideology is that privacy is a human right. Talking to people and being sure no one is snooping is a human right. Doesn't matter if the other person is in the same room or halfway across the world, private conversations are a human right.

This proposal here? It's a step towards encroaching that human right. I'm not British so I don't have a say, but if I did: no thanks.