Their opposition was that the motion was still in flux on the wording, and could have outright said “E2EE is illegal, we want either A) a backdoor into encrypti

Their opposition was that the motion was still in flux on the wording, and could have outright said “E2EE is illegal, we want either A) a backdoor into encryption if you use it B) on device monitoring for harmful content”. It came to pass that MP’s realised they couldn’t do that… yet. So what has actually gone in is some vague wording on “should the technology become available you’ll have to implement it”. Now most people are taking that as a win, that the wording is admitting defeat. Surely you can’t circumvent privacy whilst maintaining freedoms, you may as well put in “when 1+1=3”. And the companies are saying that’s fine, it doesn’t affect us. But you can’t help but feel pessimistic. That clause is Chekhov’s gun, it’s put in there in its nebulous state exactly to be vague. I’ve no doubt in the coming years there’ll be a consensus where “the technology is available” comes down to MITM or something.