White House: Share Your Thoughts on Strong Encryption

Here's what I wrote:

Expecting Americans to weaken encryption systems is analogous to mandating that all physical locks succumb to any copy of a government master key. This certainly violates the spirit of the fourth amendment--especially when you consider that the amendment explicitly guarantees the privacy of citizen's "papers, and effects".

Such a mandate would also be counter-productive in terms of reducing non-governmental intrusion. Building by-pass mechanisms into these systems inherently provides additional avenues for circumventing them. Returning to the master key analogy, if a copy of the master key was leaked into the public, the locks on every home, car and business in the entire country would have to be replaced or otherwise be rendered useless. Similarly, if, after significant research and experimentation a criminal or foreign organization was able to derive or otherwise reproduce the master key, no lock in the country could impede them.

The arguments of the few who oppose access to strong encryption as a human right imply that they consider it to be a weapon. If that's the case, then it's a right recognized by the second amendment.

Then again, while the pen may be mightier than the sword, communication is not truly a weapon. Sticks and stones can break bones but words and information are ultimately unable to cause direct physical harm.

The willingness of some men to overstep their rights and engage in violence is why we are called to count the cost of eternal vigilance and not give up our liberties for a little temporary security. This is government's raison d'etre: to protect us from the sticks and stones while upholding our inalienable rights to free speech and voluntary association--rights which also clearly encompass access to encryption.