All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to... No, this is not the case. Telephones are the excep

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to... No, this is not the case. Telephones are the exception. Mail is legally protected every which-way. Obviously I'm free to encode something on a piece of paper and hand it to someone, or through a messenger. But this proposal, at least as it's been reported, would force all communications to have a back door. No more passing encrypted notes. do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication This is a straw man. Traceability doesn't enter into it. The gov't is asking for much more than a log of traffic. It's asking to see the content of the traffic. It's also hyperbole. Until you can show that something as important as you're saying has actually used encryption, and that the inability to see inside the message would have averted the act, then you're just spinning FUD. There is currently no evidence that law enforcement is failing due to crypto. Even if it were so, you'd still have to prove that the cost of those things that might be averted exceeds the costs to society from the loss of security.