Whilst I strongly disagree with some of his viewpoints, we do agree on at least one major point.
> Many would disagree strongly with the attorney general’s assessment that an acceptable technical solution to law enforcement’s problem—one that appropriately balances all of the equities at issue—actually exists.
> But, for the reasons discussed above, public safety officials should also become among the strongest supporters of widely available strong encryption.
Encryption _should_ be continued to be used, and used in a more effective manner across all communications. The net benefits of encryption outweigh the risks that these intelligence agencies complain about.
I may think of it as absolutely necessary, and Baker may think of it as a necessary evil, but if we two from very different worlds can both agree it is necessary, then it should be fully embraced.
> Many would disagree strongly with the attorney general’s assessment that an acceptable technical solution to law enforcement’s problem—one that appropriately balances all of the equities at issue—actually exists.
> But, for the reasons discussed above, public safety officials should also become among the strongest supporters of widely available strong encryption.
Encryption _should_ be continued to be used, and used in a more effective manner across all communications. The net benefits of encryption outweigh the risks that these intelligence agencies complain about.
I may think of it as absolutely necessary, and Baker may think of it as a necessary evil, but if we two from very different worlds can both agree it is necessary, then it should be fully embraced.