Sorry but ElReg is wrong...
Richard, editors at ElReg, please...
I really enjoy reading ElReg, but now you are really showing the same kind of journalism as other, "no-need-to-check-facts-let's-just-blindly-copy-and-push-out-quickly" outlets. Or maybe you are so preoccupied with your local situation that there is no need to consider off island mind sets or opinions. Shame on you...
As I tried to outline in my comment to Kierans piece of June 16 (Look who's joined the anti-encryption posse: Germany, come on down, to which you conveniently linked in this piece. Ever considered a non-self-produced source?), Germany's interior minister Thomas de Maizière never said the country was working on a law to give itself the right to decrypt messages (joining the UK, USA and Australia in the belief that safe backdoors are feasible and Pi can be legislated to a value of 3.0).
As I mentioned in my comment to Kierren, what Mr. de Maizière was reported to have said actually was:
„Wir wollen, dass Messenger-Dienste eine Ende-zu-Ende-Verschlüsselung haben, damit die Kommunikation unbescholtener Bürger ungestört und sicher ist.“ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/innenminister-de-maiziere-will-zugang-zu-whatsapp-nachrichten-15055364.html)
which translates as “We want that messenger services have an end-to-end encryption, ensuring that the communication of respectable citizens is undisturbed and secure.” So that means he does not dismiss encryption, nor does he champion breaking it. Nor does he seem to adhere to the same practices and beliefs as, as you described, the US, UK, and Australia.
So, to help you with your (self inflicted) confusion "That's the exact opposite of what Germany's interior minister Thomas de Maizière announced [...]" Nope, it's not. As multiple news sources (see my comment on the 16th) show Mr. de Maizière actually went on record, saying that he welcomes encryption for citizens.
As I tried to explain, the remarks of Mr. de Maizière refer to a process that has been ongoing for years now, concerning the adaptation of legislation (TKÜ), which would include (encrypted) messenger services in the already existing abilities of authorities to monitor telecommunications. This would be in the same corner as phone tapping in case of suspicion, and will only be possible with a warrant. So call it an update of existing legislation if you want. And again, as I mentioned before in the comment on Kierrens piece, this implies an approach on an individual basis (with a warrant) instead of a mass surveillance approach in the hope to find something interesting.
Although I probably agree with the opinion of the majority of commentards on this forum here on the use of encryption, and have a good laugh about "technical savvy" comments of politicians like Ms. May and Rudd, I also think it is essential to get your facts straight and correct. After all, barking up a tree that turns out to be not a tree at all makes you look extremely silly...