> "Furthermore, what is described remains a backdoor, albeit a keyed backdoor. There is no requirement for backdoors to be universally exploitable to be conside

> "Furthermore, what is described remains a backdoor, albeit a keyed backdoor. There is no requirement for backdoors to be universally exploitable to be considered a backdoor, it merely needs to provide an alternative entry point into the target system or protocol." If someone just looking for holes in the law already sees this, what would the supposed to be knowledgeable politician do/think they are doing. Note: It's wrong because you are creating a universal access point in encryption to violate the original intent of the encryption (which is end to end most likely). This would mean you sell/show end to end encryption which has a man in the middle no matter what you do. And if it is poorly implemented, which is often the case with backdoors, it is probably universally accessible. Even if they say it's not. As already stated by the author.