From the privacy perspective, I do think SAFE will be a better choice for companies and individuals whose true identities are not known to the government (as they don’t have to bear regulatory burden).
From comments here on this topic it seems as if this court decision is so good that is almost invalidates the need for SAFE. To me that is the greatest irony here.
Earlier I pointed out that even after this decision it is completely “legal” for any EU government to perform unauthorized access to anyone’s data - all they need to do to make their crime legal is to put the person on some sort of a list. According to that logic the only problem is the length of this list: in the US it encompasses the entire population, while in the EU it’s shorter (but growing) which makes it okay. But then we also need SAFE, because Zeronet or Maelstrom aren’t private enough?