Your post advocates a<p>(x) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante<p>approach to backdooring cryptography. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&#x27;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)<p>( ) You have to trust a government entity not to reveal the backdoor key<p>(x) The backdoor key holders are susceptible to a good beating with a rubber hose<p>(x) The backdoor key holders are susceptible to blackmail<p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for<p>(x) Clones that refuse to honor the backdoor<p>(x) Jurisdictional problems<p>(x) Lack of incentives for consumers to adopt a crippled product<p>(x) Actual incentives for the terrorists not to adopt a backdoored product<p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:<p>(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<p>(x) Any scheme based on opt-in is unworkable<p>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<p>(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<p>(x) I don&#x27;t want the government reading my email<p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:<p>(x) Sorry dude, but I don&#x27;t think it would work.<p>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&#x27;re a stupid person for suggesting it.<p>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&#x27;m going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!<p>With thanks to <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;craphound.com&#x2F;spamsolutions.txt" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;craphound.com&#x2F;spamsolutions.txt</a>. Please feel free to help me improve this list. Similar to spam prevention, I think we&#x27;ll see a lot of broken proposals to this problem over the next few years.