> If a government messaging standard is introduced, it will absolutely be designed to consider lawful intercepts like US CALEA. Then that is obviously not what

> If a government messaging standard is introduced, it will absolutely be designed to consider lawful intercepts like US CALEA. Then that is obviously not what the parent is asking for. The government could decide to enforce an insecure messaging standard at any time. What does that have to do with the people demanding them to enforce a secure one? Are you suggesting that if we demand a secure messaging standard, it will give them the idea of turning around and enforcing an insecure one instead, as though they haven't had that idea already?