Anyone wishing to control a network of computers must choose either the tube or the box. That is, either you break the tubes and intercept traffic between opaqu

Anyone wishing to control a network of computers must choose either the tube or the box. That is, either you break the tubes and intercept traffic between opaque boxes, or you break into the boxes and leave the tubes opaque. If you assume opaque boxes then by arguing for opaque tubes Meredith Whittaker is arguing for full abdication of control of the network. Politicians don't like that. Some don't like it because in good faith they see their role as that of a protector, a threat detector. Some don't like it because in bad faith they know this is giving up a significant chunk of power. (And in reality every political leader falls on a spectrum between these two). In practice, I think we'll waver between losing control of the box and gaining it back, as it sinks in that, truly, no backdoor can be reserved for some and not for others. I think the only viable solution is to break the tube: make it illegal to send encrypted messages over the wire. Period. Then we could keep the box inviolable, opaque, and secure. But it can no longer communicate secretly to others. In practice this will mean more "sneaker net" movement of illicit and/or secret data, and probably leaps and bounds in steganography. It would also end the internet as we know it, especially any and all e-commerce. But hey, that's a small price to pay for eliminating CSAM, right?