Obviously on this topic (and many others), you can&#x27;t expect everyone in the government to have the same interest in secure communications that we have.  However, this conversation worries me.  It appears that the EFF and Access Now talked extensively about their position.  According to them they called the debate on the topic &quot;laughable&quot;.  Which is true but...<p>The response was: &quot;While they seemed well aware of our concerns about the technical infeasibility of inserting backdoors, they didn’t necessarily share them.&quot;  In other words, the White House was already aware of the EFF&#x27;s position -- so the talking at length will not result in the White House having any new insights.<p>If you believe that negotiation with the other side will be fruitful you need to find out what you need to say to make the other side understand.  &quot;Your position is laughable&quot; followed by a repetition of something they are already ignoring is not going to help.<p>I would much rather the EFF had a conversation with the White House and said absolutely nothing.  I&#x27;d love it if the EFF&#x27;s report of the conversation consisted of a list of misconceptions that the white house has about encryption and a strategy for correcting those misconceptions.  Right now their strategy seems to be, &quot;Write in and tell them how stupid they are&quot;.  While it might be true, it&#x27;s not going to change any minds.<p>So my question: Why does the White House not share the concern about the technical infeasibility of inserting backdoors?  Have they been told otherwise by someone they trust more?  If so, why do they trust the other party more?  Are they just closing their eyes and hoping that science will eventually triumph?  In either case, how do we educate them otherwise?  Is there some way to demonstrate the infeasibility in a way that will attract their attention?<p>I&#x27;m happy the EFF exists, but this seems to have been a giant waste of an opportunity (We complained very loudly and they politely ignored us).