The wrong lessons from Paris

It's been exactly two weeks since leaders from more than 40 countries stood together in Paris to send a clear message in support of compassion, solidarity and freedom of expression. For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the terrorist attack on the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo was also an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of the press - "a core element of our liberal democratic culture," she said.

For a short time it appeared as though Europe's leaders were taking their cues from Jens Stoltenberg. "More democracy, more openness, more humanity," was how the then prime minister of Norway responded to the massacre perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik in 2011. It's now clear, however, that the response to the terrible events in France will be different.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was the first to come forward with a proposal. He suggested governments should be able to access all encrypted communications in emails or messaging apps: "In extremis, it has been possible to read someone's letter, to listen to someone's call, to mobile communications," Cameron said. "The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not."

What some observers dismissed then as saber rattling in an election campaign has since become a polyphonic, pan-European choir.

Authorities want full access

Just a few days ago, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere also called for security agencies to be allowed to read encrypted communication. And now, a briefing paper from EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove floats an idea that seems to run in the same vein. In the controversial document, de Kerchove proposes authorities be given the tools to circumvent online encryption methods on mobile phones, computers, and tablets. His idea: full cooperation between European authorities and internet companies. There's a danger that Europe's justice and interior ministers will continue with this rhetoric when they meet in Riga next week.

First of all, the discussion is progressing in completely the wrong direction - you can't respond to attacks on freedom by curbing freedom. Especially since the desire for encrypted communication exists among large sections of the population for a tangible and understandable reason. Intelligence agencies in Western countries were found to have stored online communication for years, and for no reason at all. As a result, much of the public's confidence in security authorities has been lost. But instead of trying to recover it with tact and reasonable measures, they're following up now with the message: Whoever encrypts their information has something to hide.

Encryption ban not the answer

These recently floated proposals have given rise to criticism - from politics, business and, of course, from online activists. It's hoped that Europe's justice and interior ministers take this criticism on board, and perhaps once again think of Jens Stoltenberg. It simply cannot be that democratic states are allowed to put their citizens under general suspicion, and in doing so, create a sense of unease throughout society.

Instead, when the ministers meet in Riga, they should discuss how our societies can be strengthened from within. How do young people become radicalized? How can we promote integration? These are just some of the questions that should be on the table if we are to strengthen our liberal democratic culture. That approach will probably yield more in the long term than calls for more surveillance.