So let's have reasoned policy debates about encryption -- debates that are informed by technology.
No. Please, Bruce, stop feeding the false narratives of "both sides" and "balance". For those adhering to science rather than politics, there is no debate to be had. As I continually repeat on this blog, there is only one response that is necessary here: if the government has some form of encryption that they believe is the right solution, they need only supply a reference implementation and mandate (possibly under the threat of treason) that government agencies/employees start the transition process by first using it themselves.
@Stuart Lynne
We all agree (to some extent) that we want the government to do anything and everything to catch (any variant) of the Four Horsemen.
Oh, goodness, no. Whether it's the government or criminals, the threat to individuals remains abuse of power. As Nietzsche said, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." I do not accept the notion that the innocent masses must be subjected to even a qualified "anything and everything" that the government wants to do just because a few bad people exist. Any science-based approach to the issues involved understands that the cure should not be worse than the disease, and that there are confounding factors like false positives and false negatives. Anybody who does not have a grasp of basic principles like these should not wield any real power.
0f4f637f89f28a38a8815fe3163f769278c79a91122154a78eb3a722e1b4d5da