To encrypt or not to encrypt - that is not a question here

In simple terms, encryption can be understood as a series of mathematical operations applied to a plaintext and a key.

The result is then encrypted. The mathematical operations (algorithm) are known and disclosed - this has been good practice for years.

It also allows third parties/experts to independently check the cryptographic strength of the algorithm. In recent years, weaknesses have been discovered in some algorithms, including well-known ones.

Which led to the recommendation to stop using them - and to the development of more resistant successors. Thus, security results exclusively from the key used (and its secrecy). More precisely: That's how it should be...

Encryption is an integral part of today's online life. Without it, secure communication on the Internet is simply not possible.

Although there is still room for improvement, most purchases, logins, and transactions today are encrypted. By banning encryption, politicians would be doing a disservice to the security of all of us!

As an alternative, "backdoors" are often retrieved from the archive. Unfortunately, experience shows that they are also used by unauthorized instances. Either because the trusted instance has been compromised or because there are errors in the algorithm and the backdoor even works without a duplicate key.

Backdoors that harm only the bad guys exist only in the realm of fantasy - as do claims that terrorists and cyber criminals cannot be identified and caught without them. Anyone who is serious about protecting privacy must support strong encryption.

So what advantages do opponents hope to gain? Certainly, encryption makes the task of investigating authorities more difficult. But there are other ways to identify wrongdoers online.

Security manufacturers like Trend Micro, who cooperate with investigative authorities in uncovering crimes, prove this day after day. Apparently, some authorities and intelligence agencies have the transparent citizen in mind. Total visibility means lack of freedom and protection!

The German economy does not live on raw materials, but on the intellectual property of its companies. Should they not be able to protect their company secrets from private or state industrial espionage?

The ones who would be really happy would be the cybercriminals. A world in which their victims would have to communicate unsecured and in plain text would be a land of milk and honey for them: terrorists and spies would continue to communicate in encrypted form in the event of a ban.

So there is no reason to talk about a massive reduction in our security should more commercial products and services with strong encryption come onto the market. On the contrary, it seems downright strange that commercial providers who take the issue of data protection seriously are in the crosshairs of criticism.

A few days ago, Hillary Clinton called for a new "Manhattan Project" to break encryption algorithms, named after the project to develop the American atomic bombs. In view of this statement, which reflects well the prevailing opinion in the USA, I am glad that at least some European and German politicians have recognized the reality.

I would like to single out Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maizière, who does not think backdoors are necessary because there are enough other options for law enforcement agencies.

Personally, I suspect that some politicians and their advisors are haunted by fantasies of omnipotence - an understandable reaction, but a dangerous one for freedom, to the powerlessness that every unfoiled terrorist attack seems to reveal.

That is not true; we are neither totally powerless nor omnipotent. That there is total security and freedom at the same time is only a fantasy. However, we have to live with reality.