Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently showed a moment of humanity in a tech world that often promises too much, too fast. He urged users not to share anything with ChatGPT that they wouldn’t want a human to see. The Department of Homeland Security in the United States has already started to take notice.
His caution strikes at a more profound truth that underpins our entire digital world. In a realm where we can no longer be certain whether we’re dealing with a person, it is clear that software is often the agent communicating, not people. This growing uncertainty is more than just a technical challenge. It strikes at the very foundation of trust that holds society together.
This should cause us to reflect not just on AI, but on something even more fundamental, far older, quieter and more critical in the digital realm: encryption.
In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms and autonomous systems, trust is more important than ever.
Encryption is Our Foundation
Encryption isn’t just a technical layer; it is the foundation of our digital lives. It protects everything from private conversations to global financial systems, authenticates identity and enables trust to scale across borders and institutions.
Crucially, it’s not something that can be recreated through regulation or substituted with policy. When trust breaks down, when institutions fail or power is misused, encryption is what remains. It’s the safety net that ensures our most private information stays protected, even in the absence of trust.
A cryptographic system isn’t like a house with doors and windows. It is a mathematical contract; precise, strict and meant to be unbreakable. Here, a “backdoor” is not just a secret entry but a flaw embedded in the logic of the contract, and one flaw is all it takes to destroy the entire agreement. Any weakness introduced for one purpose could become an opening for everyone, from cybercriminals to authoritarian regimes. Built entirely on trust through strong, unbreakable code, the entire structure begins to collapse once that trust is broken. And right now, that trust is under threat.
A Blueprint for Digital Feudalism
The European Commission’s ProtectEU initiative proposes a mechanism that compels service providers to scan private communications directly on users’ devices before encryption is applied. This effectively turns personal devices into surveillance tools and breaks the integrity of end-to-end encryption. While state actors would never permit such a vulnerability in their own secure systems, this mandate creates a separate, weaker standard of security for the public.
On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable compromise: stronger encryption for governments, with so-called “lawful access” to citizens’ data. However, what it proposes is a hardcoded imbalance, one in which the state encrypts, and the public is decrypted.
This isn’t a security policy. It’s a blueprint for digital feudalism — a future where privacy becomes a privilege reserved for the powerful, not a right guaranteed to everyone. Two-tier encryption shifts the balance of trust from democratic accountability and cements a structure of control no free society should accept. Make no mistake: This debate isn’t about safety. It’s about control.
We shouldn’t live in a world where only the powerful get to be private.
In an age of ubiquitous AI, state-sponsored hacking and mass digital surveillance, weakening encryption isn’t just shortsighted but a systemic recklessness. For those of us in the decentralized world, this is not an abstract debate; it is a matter of practical concern. Strong, unbreakable encryption is far more than a technical feature; it’s the foundation upon which everything else rests.
Truth by Verification
This is why the mission of Web3 must stay rooted in its core promise: truth. Not truth by authority, but truth by verification. This principle of a self-enforcing contract is why true decentralized systems are built with no key master or institution that holds the keys. Introducing a backdoor is a contradiction; it re-establishes a central point of failure, violating the very premise of a trustless system. Security is a binary state: it is either present for everyone, or it is guaranteed for no one.
Fortunately, these principles are not just theoretical. The cryptographic primitives emerging from this space — zero-knowledge proofs that can confirm facts without exposing data, and proof-of-personhood systems that resist Sybil attacks without compromising privacy — offer a real, working alternative, showing that we don’t have to choose between security and freedom.
The irony is stark: The same field now under threat holds the tools we need to build a more secure, more open digital future. One based not on surveillance or gatekeeping, but on permissionless innovation, cryptographic trust and individual dignity.
If we want a digital world that is safe, inclusive and resilient, then encryption must remain strong and universally standardized for everyone.
Not because we have something to hide, but because we all have something to protect.