The German article is more on point and it goes into more details about the background and also the probable solution with "Exceptional Access" architecture.
The official EU draft documents always use a very careful language to not create too much suspicion. Only one or two sentences actually tell the truth: "Possible solutions may need the support of service providers in a transparent and lawful manner, as well as improving the technical and tactical skills which the law enforcement and judicial authorities need to face the challenges of digitisation at a global scale."
I hope some English articles will appear soon.
I'm certainly open to changing the URL from what is probably an obscurantist press release to a more accurate and neutral source. But it would need to be in English. Sorry—I realize that's frustrating to anyone who reads both languages, but most HN readers can't.
Update: I got an indirect confirmation that the REV1 version of the document should be authentic and they also noted that radiofm4 (ORF) has a good record of previous disclosures.
There may be some confusion. The original link wasn't in English. The current one is a press release or similar. What would be best is an article that is both in English and not a press release.
You're conflating the language issue with the alleged "obscurantist" issue. In your opinion, since you brought it up, what facts are the original link lying about or hiding?
Exceptional Access document: https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SKM_C4582...
Rev. 1 of the original document, dated November 6: https://files.orf.at/vietnam2/files/fm4/202045/783284_fh_st1...