In dangerous times - whether during conflict, unrest, or disinformation - encryption isn’t a luxury. It’s a life-saving layer of security for individuals and societies. Weakening it doesn’t make us safer; it makes everyone more vulnerable. And no one is safe until everyone is safe. A few words on #encryption and #Egypt's context:
1. On decryption assistance mandates and Egypt’s context
Decryption assistance mandates - as in forcing companies or individuals to provide access to encrypted data - don’t really function in practice, whether in Egypt or elsewhere. In Egypt’s case, we don’t see explicit legal mechanisms for ‘lawful access’ like those proposed in Western debates, but we do see functional equivalents through other means: broad surveillance powers, vague national security clauses, pressure on service providers, infrastructure ownership by the state, and granting isps and mobile operators secret licenses that gives the security full access to backend. There’s no clear oversight, and little transparency. We have a parallel system in which access happens informally and accountability is absent. That’s not unique to Egypt, it’s worrying in places where justice systems are fragile or unreliable.
2. On vague cybersecurity laws
The vagueness of #cybersecurity laws in Egypt and many countries with similar governance models is not accidental. It’s a feature, not a bug. The laws are drafted broadly to serve multiple political objectives: flexibility in enforcement, establishing fear through uncertainty, and legal cover for surveillance or prosecution when needed. From a #humanrights standpoint, this creates a chilling effect. Leaving citizens unsure of what’s permissible. Precise laws are essential to #security, rights and building trust.
3. On crime prevention versus hidden agendas
Crime prevention is always the headline justification - it’s easy to communicate and hard to argue against. But the deeper reality is that encryption control often serves political or social control purposes. In my experience, many of these regulations expand state visibility over digital lives under the banner of fighting crime or terrorism. Yet the data collected often ends up used against ordinary citizens. We learned from the last two decades that expanding in surveillance doesn’t not help in making our societies safer. The tension isn’t between privacy and crime prevention - it’s between accountable security and unchecked power.
4. On the future of encryption policy in Egypt
I think we’re entering a more polarized phase. There’s growing pressure from states to weaken encryption in the name of AI monitoring, disinformation, and national security. And there’s rising public understanding - especially after years of data breaches and surveillance leaks - that encryption is foundational to safety and trust. For Egypt, the future should prioritize transparency and multi-stakeholder dialogue that are inclusive built on technical realities instead of fear narratives.