And then you get legislation requiring backdoors.
People need to get their head around the back that this is a political problem and requires political solutions.
People need to get their head around the back that this is a political problem and requires political solutions.
You could probably get around one, too, by selling pieces of the system and having the customer use OSS for the rest. That is, sell storage and key dongles while pointing your customer to front end software. The same way they used to sell crushed grapes during prohibition.
If the provider doesn't encrypt anything (which is the case with end-to-end encryption), then it doesn't have to hand over anything.
I think we should try to get from a 4 to 5, even if we can't get all the way to 10 right away. We shouldn't just punt on the problem because it's not possible to have an immediately perfect solution. 4 to 5 might mean using keys that only the customer has access to. 7 through 10 might all be political, sure, but let's keep moving.
Governments can be limited by legal constructs. Non-governmental actors, or government actors from other jurisdictions, cannot.
Crypto and legislative reform are mutually reinforcing bulwarks.
In theory that judge is supposed to make sure the law is being followed. My impression, though, is that some judges have a much more expansive view of government power than I think is warranted.
France? Much worse history on encryption than the US.
Germany? Officially better, but the intelligence services have been revealed to be essentially ignoring German law when it gets in the way of working with their US counterparts.
And so on and so forth.