> allowing law enforcement to do their thing when necessary "their thing" being pointing a telescopic lens at a suspect as they enter their password, or planti

> allowing law enforcement to do their thing when necessary "their thing" being pointing a telescopic lens at a suspect as they enter their password, or planting a hardware keylogger when they leave their computer unattended? Or is "their thing" more like mass surveillance of everyone? Does Cheng feel car manufacturers have a responsibility to plant microphones in their vehicles, with "threshold encryption" keeping conversations in that car secret? What about construction companies? Law enforcement has no way to retroactively get a record of all conversations that took place in a room, even with a valid warrant. Does that make rooms beyond the reach of law enforcement? What other everyday tools we consider "ours" should be required to betray us if whatever threshold he proposes is reached? And only the good governments will be able to reach these thresholds, right? If you look back through history, the risk of one's own government turning against them is so low, we should have no qualms about surrounding ourselves with tools ready to turn on us, should the state ask them to?