> The balance that needs to be found is around the assistance which is rendered to warranted agencies to enable their access to data. IMO vendor supported key m

> The balance that needs to be found is around the assistance which is rendered to warranted agencies to enable their access to data. IMO vendor supported key material attacks are not an unreasonable solution[...]If they can be enabled on a case by case basis such that it is cost effective for them to do the rest, that might be enough. Why is it not unreasonable? You're compelling companies to write custom software explicitly for law enforcement use. Let's say you own a company that creates product X. Now the FBI is compelling you, through the court system, to develop a completely custom version of product X to let them access it or use it in some way. Sure they're paying you but you now have to redirect resources to handle this and you likely hired people to do things other than work on a government project. This ultimately can hurt your company and its market position simply by consuming your resources. This is unprecedented outside of war times. It's hard for me to imagine anyone being okay with compelling a company to become a government contractor. > It's a hard problem but it's not binary. It absolutely is. The "middle ground" you pointed to isn't a middle ground; it's unconstitutional. I have yet to hear a technically viable AND constitutional "middle ground" in this debate.