As this thread had shown, there are dozens of serious questions for them to answer. Not least of which is the fact since you are not a criminal until a court has found you guilty , who are they calling criminal?

On the plus side, being that they're in European countries, they likely have the enviable position of being able to ignore and chastise the worst excesses of USA law. However, that's my question as well, this is all well and good, but it also puts them in the position of having to have a "scale" of which crimes are "worth" legally complying with, and which ones are "worth" ignoring and fighting.

They don't have to support the fanatical religious government in Afghanistan, for instance, but surely there are dissidents there who would like to be able to communicate without being monitored in Afghanistan as well. Where's the line? Is the line different for each country and it's laws? Are they going to count the absurd "religious crimes" there as the same as more egregious crimes like ransomware?

It actually would behoove these groups to codify and communicate their positions on this wholesale now because the issue isn't going to go away.