data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7bb24/7bb24ffdd7b1ea1ae4153e02f931fa65fda6885d" alt=""
nadim@infosec.exchange ("Nadim Kobeissi") wrote:
Signal has announced that it will “leave Sweden” if the Swedish government mandates encryption backdoors. Many are celebrating this as a bold act of resistance. But what does it actually mean?
Signal has no offices or legal presence in Sweden. Will they block Swedish IP addresses? Remove the app from Swedish app stores? Both are trivial to bypass. If the goal is to protect user privacy, what does “leaving” achieve besides signaling disapproval, and emboldening governments to Balkanize the Internet?
This highlights a broader problem with how companies navigate government pressure: the instinct to withdraw rather than fight. If platforms committed to privacy and security retreat at the first sign of regulatory pressure, they create a fragmented internet where oppressive laws go unchallenged. Governments don’t need to win legal battles if services simply leave instead.
Standing up for human rights means more than just leaving hostile jurisdictions—it means staying and resisting. Engaging with the legal system. Fighting in courts. Mobilizing public support. There are times when withdrawal is the only option, but when it happens reflexively, it starts to look more like PR than principle.
If Signal wants to set an example for defending encryption, it should make clear what “leaving” actually entails—and more importantly, what it’s doing to resist. Otherwise, it risks sending the message that authoritarian governments can get rid of privacy tools simply by being hostile enough.
https://swedenherald.com/article/signals-ceo-then-were-leaving-sweden