While I hope that's the case, Number 10 must also be aware that the language they're using does make it sound like thei plan is to restrict the availability/leg

While I hope that's the case, Number 10 must also be aware that the language they're using does make it sound like thei plan is to restrict the availability/legality of ciphers. Cameron was originally quoted as saying: > The question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not That's a very specific quote that says they want to target the communication itself. Not the machines it's on or the wires it passes through, the 1s and 0s as they go over the wire. They're either using language to make it sound much more military than it is, in which case they should stop, or they're testing the waters and reigning back when they see the reaction from the tech industry. I don't like either, and I'd much prefer they asked "What can we do" rather than make their own assertions.