Worse, for secrets we actually care about (nuclear codes?) we must still research proper encryption schemes since backdoors are admissions of weakness in a security protocol fundamentally as far as I've come to understand.
> We are confident that there are technical solutions that will allow lawful access to encrypted data and communications by law enforcement without materially weakening the security provided by encryption. Such encryption regimes already exist. For example, providers design their products to allow access for software updates using centrally managed security keys. We know of no instance where encryption has been defeated by compromise of those provider-maintained keys. Providers have been able to protect them.
This quote from the article seems to contradict itself. First it claims "... without materially weakening the security provided by encryption" then goes on to state "We know of no instance where encryption has been defeated by compromise of those provider-maintained keys" implying that there is a possibility of this kind of breach.
This whole thing seems like an oligarch's attempt to spy on it's people pretty plainly to me. Where is the liberty and freedom in this?
