Point 25:

> Conducting a comprehensive mapping of the current legislation in Member States to detail the legal responsibilities of digital hardware and software manufacturers to comply with data requests from law enforcement. It would also take into account specific scenarios and requirements that compel companies to access devices, in compliance also with CJEU case-law and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The goal should be to develop an EU-level handbook on that basis, and depending on the aforementioned mapping, to promote the approximation of legislation within this area, and to develop binding industry standards for devices brought to market in the EU, to integrate lawful access.

> The degree of difficulty involved in decrypting bespoke devices that have been designed and marketed exclusively for criminal purposes is even higher and presents further challenges to digital forensics departments across the Member States.

Since devices marketed exclusively for criminal purposes are hard to break into, lets make all the other devices easy to break into. Great logic.

Reading the PDF is like reading a police state handbook. The greatest threat to privacy and security of EU citizens has become EU itself.