> ...but anyway it is reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid regardless of consensus opinion among experts in the relevant fields.
What are you trying to say here? Arguing for compromise in the intentionally weakening of cryptographically secured systems is like arguing for compromise in how much rat poison people should be forced to eat.
What are you trying to say here? Arguing for compromise in the intentionally weakening of cryptographically secured systems is like arguing for compromise in how much rat poison people should be forced to eat.