Looking over <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ietf.org&#x2F;mail-archive&#x2F;web&#x2F;httpbisa&#x2F;current&#x2F;msg14288.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ietf.org&#x2F;mail-archive&#x2F;web&#x2F;httpbisa&#x2F;current&#x2F;msg14...</a>, I&#x27;m not sure whether I&#x27;m reading this correctly. In light of PRISM, the author posed a few options:<p>1) We can try to add more encryption to fight back.<p>2) We can recognize that there needs to be hooks for duly authorized access.<p>3) We can change or at least influence the political objectives<p>Personally, I&#x27;d have assumed option one is the obvious answer, in addition to increasing adoption of encryption in other areas (though that may be outside the scope of their project). Unfortunately the author seems to conclude that there need to be (presumable CALEA-style) hooks for &quot;duly authorized access&quot;. This is almost unbelievable that they are openly suggesting implementing backdoors in communications protocols. I expect this from LE and politicians, but I don&#x27;t expect this from FreeBSD commiters.