The assumption that government should be able to weigh in on use of encryption is likely the purpose of this letter, IMO. They are framing the argument by assuming a permission-based situation. As it stands, you don't need permission to use encryption in communications, and it needn't be rare. The government of a free people necessarily has its hands tied. This letter is trying to undermine that notion.Governments should recognize that the nature of encryption is such that that there will be situations where access to information is not possible, although such situations should be rare.
Yeah, but they've been making that statement about PGP since '91. They tried to characterize encryption as munitions back in '93. We're pretty much to our second generation of law enforcement dealing with encryption as routine and the game is always "we have a right to search" / "no but they have 5th Amendment rights." I dunno, man. In a world where Americans born using midwives are having their passports revoked and immigrants are staying off WIC so they don't get deported I CANNOT work myself into a lather over abstract subtleties such as "we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions". These are the babysnatchers we're talking about. The bombers of school buses. If Jeff Sessions decided he had an opinion on cryptography, there would be an executive order declaring cryptography to be a felony, regardless of the legality or practicality of the edict.
I know a couple whose daughter was adopted from Korea who have been unable to obtain a learner's permit from our Secretary of State (our version of the DMV) because her birth certificate and adoption records don't prove she's an American to the Trumpist Michigan government. For real. A fucking learner's permit.