Well, if the EU outlaws the internet, they'll be cut off from it -- which will no doubt lead to them suing to get back on it, then passing laws mandating that they be on it, despite the fact that anyone putting them on it is subject to criminal penalties.
I find it amusing (in a horrifying sort of way) that almost every major city police force in the US fits the definition (found in federal statutes) of what a terrorist is than a significant portion of who gets labeled a terrorist by the US government these days.
There should be, but there isn't. Anyone attempting to impose a non-governmental fix along those lines negates their own safe harbor and opens themselves up to costly lawsuits that they will most likely lose.
How much justice can you do, when you cannot send criminals to prison without a trial, and you cannot have a trial if you won't provide a lawyer and they can't afford one?
I bet "We had to dismiss thousands of charges and let hundreds of nefarious criminals awaiting trial go free because we're too cheap to do what the law says we have to" would look AWESOME on their resumes...
It's especially stupid when you consider that a phone manufacturer selling phones with encryption installed is exactly the same as a house builder selling houses with door locks installed -- and that comparison isn't even remotely secret or obscure to those who will likely be voting for his opponent come the next election.
The thing is, when the deciding factor that determines whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy is, "did he break the law", then breaking the law to catch someone means you're just creating more bad guys, not reducing the number running around.
If the guy you're breaking the law to catch is in fact a good guy, then the bad guys won no matter who goes to jail.
Or better yet, amend the civil asset forfeiture law to allow private citizens to sue city buildings (not the agency or personnel, the BUILDING) in state court if the city does not comply with state law.