Then you rely upon the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and prior restraint of speech is strict scrutiny. There is no way a backdoor survives that at the Supreme Court, there is simply too many cases where strong encryption is obviously required for legal use.<p>Speaking privately is the rockbed of free speech. Without privacy of speech, there absolutely never be any thought that speech is free. To try to restrict the privacy of communication is antithetical.<p>Obviously that doesn&#x27;t mean people wont try to do it &#x27;for the better good&#x27; but easily usable strong encryption is reality, just the same as the idea that strong encryption isn&#x27;t going to stop you from being tracked and monitored.<p>I&#x27;m fairly confident that government doesn&#x27;t need this, and government won&#x27;t get it. But partly that is confirmation bias because the idea they just might get it is ludicrous to me. It would be as pointless as it is shameful.