Okay. Great. They can use these human weaknesses to get at the information they want, then. No need to weaken the underlying encryption. You’ve solved the problem.

It’s not an “assumption” to state that having an ex use national security apparatus to spy on you compromises your security. It’s nuts to suggest otherwise, in fact. Look at what you’re doing — you’re trying to make a case that it’s somehow okay that the government is giving hundreds of thousands or millions of yahoos…

Well, there is no serious doubt that that is happening. We already know that they use surveillance technology to do that. It doesn’t require a conspiracy, it just requires the fact that they’ve put all this stuff in the hands of hundreds of thousands of contractors. People like, for example, Edward Snowden. How do you…

He mentioned several times that talking about this is absolutes is a bad thing to do.

Okay, so he says that on balance, we need a system that both protects individual privacy and security but also provides law enforcement with the tools they need to get around that when necessary.

There’s no way to do that in a way that ONLY allows law enforcement to be able to access the data. That’s the concern. It’s actually not even nearly as expensive to do as it sounds, and could easily be abused by both governments not as benevolent as our own and criminals alike.

I have no reason to worry about a judge issuing a warrant to get into my phone. I use my phone for many sensitive things, shopping, banking, etc. What Obama wants will make doing all those things and my personal data that much less secure. Should my privacy and security be weakened or violated because of a terrorist?…

Human rights have always come with a cost.

You can doubt what you like, but your doubts don’t change actual facts. The actual fact is that designing a secure system necessarily involves making it so that there is no way for the designer to break in. (It involves more than that, of course.)

I work with encryption all day every day. I have a very good idea how and why it works. I can tell you there is no way to make a backdoor that is secure.

Government doesn’t force you to give them a copy of your front door, mail box, office, master room, bath room, safe, etc keys just in case you become a suspect. They can develop their own way to open the lock when they get warrants. Just because it’s hard to open, doesn’t mean you need to duplicate your keys for them.

Saying that everyone has a Swiss bank account in their pocket and that the government should be able to get to it if they want to is a real problem. They should not be able to get to the contents of my phone anymore than they should be able to crack open my head and examine my brain. They are the government of the…

No... this really is one of those times when being an absolutist is the right thing to do. You can’t kind of create a security flaw in the same way you can’t be kind of pregnant. You either do it, or you don’t.