I risk getting a little too &quot;meta&quot; here, but I feel it will be constructive for us all, and I hope it&#x27;s ok this one time.<p>&gt; Please stop doing this<p>Most of your responses to myself and others begin with a line similar to this. It&#x27;s meta in itself, but also puts people a little off. We&#x27;re debating things here, and we seem to disagree on some points... but that&#x27;s OK since that&#x27;s really what we&#x27;re here for. You can&#x27;t ask people to stop disagreeing with you, but if you feel strongly, you may choose not to respond.<p>&gt; It really bothers me when people erroneously suggest that I support crypto backdoors.<p>You have stated this several times, and I do believe you. The problem here is that we&#x27;re not (and the government&#x27;s not) just discussing backdoors, but other means such as purposefully weakening encryption, outright bans, or other methods of subverting strong encryption. Stating you don&#x27;t support backdoors is only one small component of what&#x27;s at stake here. It&#x27;s almost a level of misdirection or a half-statement to throw this in whenever someone attacks your argument. In addition - you have made good arguments which seem to illustrate the problems with having universal default unbreakable encryption. This leads one to believe you are in opposition of such.<p>&gt; My issue is that universal default unbreakable encryption doesn&#x27;t just break dragnet surveillance, but also breaks discovery and evidence recovery done under a warrant in routine investigations.<p>This is an example of one argument that seems to favor subverting strong encryption by some means. If you do not support universal default unbreakable encryption, then you must be against it on some level. If you&#x27;re against it on some level, then the logical conclusion is you support one or many of the government suggested solutions, such as banning&#x2F;backdooring&#x2F;weakening. As mentioned, you do not support backdooring, but that leaves two other options that are being actively pursued by the government.<p>&gt; I&#x27;m going to hazard that I&#x27;ve done more work to help foil attempts to break crypto than you have. My bona fides here are established<p>This is largely irrelevant information. I am aware of your background - however one&#x27;s professional view is not always the same as one&#x27;s personal view. Being a security professional and thoughts on encryption are not mutually exclusive.<p>&gt; no matter how you choose to misread my comments<p>I think this issue isn&#x27;t really a misread, but rather the half statements about backdooring. I probably didn&#x27;t articulate that difference properly, but I submit you failed to do the same.<p>In any event, it seems we mostly agree on this subject really, although we both argue it differently.