Slashdot Mirror
Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance Argues 'Privacy is Not Absolute' in Push For Encryption Backdoors (itnews.com.au)
The Five Eyes, the intelligence alliance between the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, issued a statement warning they believe "privacy is not absolute" and tech companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions." Slashdot reader Bismillah shares a report: The governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have made the strongest statement yet that they intend to force technology providers to provide lawful access to users' encrypted communications. At the Five Country Ministerial meeting on the Gold Coast last week, security and immigration ministers put forward a range of proposals to combat terrorism and crime, with a particular emphasis on the internet. As part of that, the countries that share intelligence with each other under the Five-Eyes umbrella agreement, intend to "encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services." Such solutions will apply to products and services operated in the Five-Eyes countries which could legislate to compel their implementation. "Should governments continue to encounter impediments to lawful access to information necessary to aid the protection of the citizens of our countries, we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions," the Five-Eyes joint statement on encryption said.
I'd say "please".
... is not absolute.
Sure thing guys, you first.
A big part of why end to end encryption is becoming more popular and desired by the public is because people everywhere were horrified to find out how big a dragnet the 5 eyes nations were using, and they'd probably never have found out if it wasn't for Edward Snowden.
We need more encryption not less.
I'd rather every single criminal go free than have the government able to snoop on innocent people.
This is not some sort of challenge to government. It's a fact of the universe. All the efforts by each government to outwit the other by creating "unbreakable encryption" has resulted in it getting into the hands of the civilians. No amount of government restricts will undo the laws of mathematics they so carefully tried to exploit to ensure the security of their own messages. Now it can be used by anyone and no amount of collusion by technological companies, legislation, or other measures will adequately provide the backdoors they so desperately desire.
The cat is out of the bag. Instead of embracing this fact and working around the limitations this means, like finding loose links or offering immunity to some for access when it comes to criminal organizations/groups or simply other detective/intelligence work in a world that will never return all the answers, this parade of begging and threats only lures in a few useful idiots who tend to not be useful enough.
Either that or it's all a charade and the encryption has already been broken. But given their behavior, I tend to doubt it. That, by far, is actually the most crippling thing: admitting how powerless they are when encryption is used correctly. It's little wonder "Five Eyes" acts such like a petulant child. It's also incredibly pathetic.
With multiple systems being breached every month, lets create backdoors to make this happen. Anyone suggesting this has no idea how tech works.
that an alliance of intelligence agencies that uses snooping through private material to gather intelligence attempts to set forth the narrative that "privacy is not an absolute"? Not very shocking at all...
I hope that the rule of law and the legislative bodies elected by representatives of the people weigh in on this rather one-sided pronouncement.
Look, I get it: when you're trying to stop the worst criminals in the world it seems stupid to let trivial stuff like privacy of people you don't care about get in the way. Because if you don't, people will die.
But there are three problems: (1) you haven't earned the public trust. Episode after episode (lying to congress, for-profit prisons, coercion of innocent people to plead guilty through a bad plea bargain system, backdoor unconstitutional evidence, even standard interrogation techniques) show that despite lots of good people in law enforcement, law enforcement as a whole should not be trusted. If you want the public trust, you need to put MUCH better systems in place to ensure accountability and transparency. The end result will be *worse* for the bad guys, *better* for law enforcement, and would *enable* the kind of trust-ful environment you want to go after terrorists. (2) it weakens security generally, for technical reasons, and that's not to be glossed over. (3) It's not just about how it gets in the way of you going after the asshole who's trying to plan the next 9/11. It's also about what's the worst thing a person in government abusing their power would do with the information you're collecting. It's not about you; it's about the guy who stores information on the entire population and uses it for political purposes later when those people become Presidents, Senators, and CEOs.
It's about J. Edgar Hoover and Senator McCarthy. It's about people making lists of undesireables from information about religion or belief or google search or sexual mores. It's about control by the most evil of people using all the power of your office and the offices around you--the people who, even if you have a good culture today, could be in those offices with surprising speed.
Defense of Democracy is not just about Defense from foreign threats. It's about defense from domestic ones. It's about threats from enemies within our own power structure, and more than anything about preventing the corruption of power.
The problem of lawless law enforcers is it leads durectly to abuse abd exploitation, embezzlement and theft.
Corportation and private citizens need heavier and harder encyption to protect their individual interests from public theft or politically motivated exploitation.
US local states and towns governments are well known for their unconstitutional racist bigoted rulings demying political minority groups even basic civil rights, basic feedom of speech and self expression, religious freedom, private property 4th amendment no tresspassing warrantless searches, sometimes resulting in injury or death of tax paying home owners, and rampent 14th amendment violations of different races or religious groups.
Just because someone gets a job in government doesn't make them one of the 'good guys'.
If your phone/computer OEM can force you to use only specified firmware, the spooks can force them to modify the firmware in ways that betray the user.
People always say "encryption can't be broken" but that is missing the point. They can mandate a pre-encryption backdoor in phones and tablets, and because those are relatively locked down platforms, it'll do the trick, forking over your data before it is encrypted, or on the other end, after it is decrypted for you to view it. Sure some people will find ways around, but the point is that 99.9% of the population never will even try, they won't even be aware it's a thing.
This is why it is so critical to keep control over hardware. The more we buy locked down hardware, the more control slips from our fingers. Even now PC hardware is edging that way, with all the hardware level DRM and "ring -1" features anymore.
Make no mistake: there is a war going on over who gets to control the mechanisms of the digital world. It's a long, slow loss, but the trend is clear. We're not winning this. Personal computers were much more under your control 30 years ago than today.
If the target is using end to end ecryption, get a F'ing warrant and hack the endpoint(s), assign tail teams... Mass surveillance does not protect the "citizens", and enables a government of the state, by the state, for the state, doing material harm to everyone on the planet.
Without the internet, without computer based encryption the IRA was able to coordinate terrorist activities for decades.
There are still "Numbers stations" which publicly just broadcast a series of numbers
There are thousands of ways to transmit information, all undetectable.
For example if a child wears a red t-shirt it could mean the house is under surveillance, the child knows nothing, its just what he was given to wear that day.
A loaf of bead gets bought before mid day, or after , there is a different meaning
If someone posts on a message board saying their cat has run away, it could have another meaning to others
Those that want to hide in plain sight and transmit encrypted information will still be able to do so with impunity, this just puts honest people at risk.
As for the "nothing to hide" argument , of course people have something to hide.
A GP who likes to dress as a baby in nappies, a male lawyer who likes to dress as cinderella, a wife who is having an affair with the gardener, a Jew who likes bacon, someone being an atheist , being gay, ex member of a hate group, illegitimate child, paying off a porn star and playboy model. There are millions of things we keep to ourselves and the government wants to be trusted with that information.... "I don't think so Tim".
How about the government can have as much privacy as it's citizens. National security is nothing more than a euphemism for "we want to hold onto power"... It's high time our government started acting responsibly and the only way to do that is a grass roots efforts.
"Pass an amendment requiring full open financial information on all elected officials and their family members, spouse & children."
Mod parent up! We live in societies that lack a depth of understanding. We are forced to vote for people we don't really know. Most people are ignorant about much of what happens around them that affects their lives.
Many people in government and in management of private companies have NO knowledge of technical issues. That doesn't prevent them from having what they consider to be a strong and sensible opinion. They don't recognize they are wildly ignorant.
De-encryption back doors are not an answer. They will ALWAYS eventually be compromised.
Encryption is ALWAYS available. Forcing back doors will merely hasten the development of additional encryption methods.
eom
Headline: Agency who's job it is to spy on citizens thinks citizens shouldn't have technology which makes it difficult for them to be spied on.
...when Wikileaks, Anonymous, the Russians, etc. find the backdoor.
"Give me 6 lines written by the purest of men, and I'll find wherewithal to hang him in them". /dev/random say what they want to believe.
The breakthough is not needing those 6 lines at all.
If they get the law they think they can get (by blackmailing the politicians? Dragnet had to include them, probably them first) - they can then demand you decrypt random bits - and bust you if you can't - or they can - make
It won't matter if you use effectively unbreakable crypto - the laws of math and all that. It'll only make it worse.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions
They ask for legal access, and should they be denied, they will change to law to make it legal?
How does "no" sound? Does "no" work for you?
NO.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
This is why government is a damn joke and the people need to take the power back from the fucking morons they gave it to in the first place.
If we can't have gun control becuase "the constitution says the right to own guns (arms technically) shall not be infringed"...then law enforcement should have to actually do a little work and deal with encryption since the constitution doesn't make exceptions for our right to privacy.
Otherwise your government is just a bunch of oppressive asshates; illegtimate; and need to be overthrown.
There really is no difference between the good guys and the bad guys, is there?
If your phone/computer OEM can force you to use only specified firmware, the spooks can force them to modify the firmware in ways that betray the user.
Except that the spooks have no legal authority to compel the tech firms to do that, and the tech firms have a huge incentive to refuse to cooperate and to publicly fight back.
The people will win on this because the corporations are on our side.
Try not to annoy or threaten the very folks you're relying upon for a solution.
Just like pissing off the wait staff before your food arrives, nothing good can come of it.
Though government officials aren't typically known for their amazing insight :|
If there's a backdoor, there's no encryption.
Given we don't see politicians publishing their bank account details and credit card numbers, we can assume politicians really don't understand the consequences of their proposals.
Ignorance is a really bad place to be making decisions from.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
only outlaws will have encryption.
I thought there were some constitutional protections in the US to prevent this type of thing from happening, but I guess not.
Most of the terrorist activities I've seen reported were using unencrypted communications.
Social media sites provide a treasure trove of suspects with simple searches. I mean really, just start with all the twitter/youtube/facebook rants and work your way down from that.
But I guess that's too hard for the 5 eyes.
Anyone know of anything like this?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"cyka blyat!!"
I blame Booz Allen and the NSA more than Snowden. Even if Snowden hadn't leaked, the slipshod way everyone was dealing with classified information would have eventually led to some form of disclosure.
Spycraft is a highly specialized and weird world, and the tradecraft and secrets involved should not be available to those without a need to know. The NSA should have compartmentalized and encrypted their own secrets much better. All Snowden should have seen, as an IT worker and poorly-vetted young contractor, were streams of random characters sitting in inboxes and file systems. He could still mount filesystems and keep data flowing through networks without being able to read or understand the data.
If the NSA isn't employing quantum computing both for encryption and decryption by now, then every US citizen should be prepared to have foreign terms forced upon them in some arena. That's a polite way of saying we'll get our asses kicked. I sincerely hope that the ad nauseam calls for back doors is just a smoke screen or false flag maneuver.
Now, this is probably going to be highly unpopular here, but here's my take on privacy: If the feds are able to crack my private encrypted messages, the all the more power to them. If they use my private information in dealing with hostile foreign actors, I got no complaint. However, if they use this information - directly - to persecute me for any activity, illegal or not, then that's crossing a red line. If instead they tip the FBI who are able to obtain warrants, and then they bust me, then that's fair. if, on the other hand, I use encryption techniques that they cannot reasonably crack, then they can park a van across the street from my house and peer at me through the windows. Or just knock on the door and offer to clean my carpets for free.
But trying to tell a US citizen within the borders of the United States that they cannot communicate and encrypt using any method available to them - i.e. math and creative problem solving - is crossing the red line of tyranny.
Shpx lbh, lbh ynml pbpx fhpxref. Dhvg ovgpuvat gung lbhe wbo vf uneq naq chfu gur obhaqnevrf bs grpuabybtl gb trg lbhe fuvg qbar. Sbe rknzcyr, frr gur uvfgbel bs gur Ravtzn pbqr naq gur ahpyrne obzo.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Encryption will be broken, but each time this gets close to happening, new and more interesting and novel encryption methods are published.
We did not grant rights to these elected governments to have ultimate surveillance powers over us, citizens.
Those that read this: vote. Query your candidates for their position on privacy and surveillance. Ask them outright, and feel free to distribute the answers to these questions. Then vote. Get those who can't easily vote to the polls. Make your positions known.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
ANY BACK DOORS YOU PUT INTO ENCRYPTION WILL BE USED BY EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!
Moreover, any back doors you put into encryption will be ABUSED by everyone...INCLUDING the Government.
So. In response.
No. Eat a dick.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Maybe I should have said decryption.
There was a reason I said de-encryption. I am hoping a Slashdot reader sends a link to my comment to someone with no technical knowledge, but who has power over governmental issues. I was thinking maybe that person wouldn't know the meaning of decryption.
Also, Slashdot comments represent me at my worst, in some ways. Often I spend time writing a Slashdot comment when I am very busy doing other things.
This is a great idea. The problem with it is the honest folks will look at the requirements and think "aww hell no", while those who are less than honest will be looking for loopholes and places to hide their income stream.
IMHO, I suspect this is half our problem with our "elected officials". The other half is, no matter how honest you are the system forces you to be corrupt. Where corrupt is defined by anything you or I would call corrupt, but congress sees as business as usual. See also congresscritters required to spend x hours per week at a call center drumming up money.
Then you have the absolute idiots like Duncan Hunter, who one day throws his wife under the bus, and the next day says "keep my wife out of it".
And I believe that stupid intelligence apparat need to be executed in the most inhumane and humiliating manner possible. ON LIVE TV!
Isn't it nice to have beliefs?
Also, beliefs are what you have when you lack any real evidence (in short, you're making shit up).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> Except that the spooks have no legal authority to compel the tech firms to do that,
They can, and have, in the past. Remember when SSL keys were limited to 80-bits for export use? Remember when they've insisted that Cisco include backdoor keys in their hardware? Remember the design of the Clipper Chip, which was only discarded when it was found that people could generate their own private keys that passed the checks for the "Law Enforcement Agency Field" checks?
I wouldn't say the corporations are on our side. They're on their own side.
But to the extent they'll start losing sales as people realize those small but expensive boxes they sell are little more than 1984's "televisors" made portable (great, Big Brother is not just watching and listening, he's in your pocket), it is in their self-interest to resist this.
However, with enough pressure, they'll knuckle under. Look at Google's principled stand on censored search-engines in China (*cough*), for example.
-- Alastair
One of the documents that was leaked or referenced was the system used to crack encryption (WindsorGreen/WindsorBlue).
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Henry Hill: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I say just give them ALL the "encrypted data" they ask for. Let them figure out how to actually decrypt it.
IRL, any laws passed to enforce this will have the following effects: 1. APT will just make their own "clean" variations of various encryption protocols, and these will forever be beyond the grasp of Five Eyes. 2. Someone will find the "master keys", and the REAL fun will begin as all compromised protocols will be "open season", and the entire system will be compromised 3. The Five Eyes will develop their own, non-compromised protocols for military communications; but will be unable to allow all the various contractors access so this too will be vulnerable.
Encryption need not necessarily be broken. One-time pads, for example, remain crypotgraphically robust, even with quantum computing applied to them.
Trump is not a particularly visionary leader or anything. Bit of a buffoon really. The all-important thing is that he's not part of the aristocracy...
He's sure got you fooled, doesn't he.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's about power and control. Government likes it. Police like it. Intimidation in the name of public safety is a time-honored madness.
That politicians exempt themselves from most things is to be expected. You'll know corruption has ended and snowballs will make it through hell when they stop being privileged. We're animals, and being alpha is part of your legacy and mine.... and some of use exercise that tendency more than others.
Handing over your keys is a big problem for most people. Others will trustingly (or in deep fear) relinquish them. Or if you're Google, you'll sell them to the highest bidder.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If the NSA, one of the worlds largest and most sophisticated intelligence organizations failed to keep some extremely sensitive and classified information secret, how can any other organization be trusted. I'm afraid that we *CAN* fault the entire program for a single slip up. if government agencies have backdoors to data, then those backdoors would be very valuable to a wide range of organizations.
I say we give the government another chance in say 50 years after this last breach. That should give them time to clean up their mistakes.
I'm not promoting or implying that I would take part in any rebellious acts when I point out that there are historical precedents that those in power would do well to consider. They are vastly outnumbered and as a result of this their power is not absolute.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
Privacy IS absolute. Once Government breaches privacy and introduces surveillance you by definition do not have privacy anymore.
Same goes for free speech, free speech IS absolute, once you have restrictions on speech, speech is by definition restricted and not free.
This is a big reason why establishment parties left and right in all 5 of those countries need to be kicked out. Trump and Brexit are not loud enough warnings.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Cartoonishly villainous yet comically inept
Gestapo officers, ostensibly responsible for computer security, advocate for draconian new badlaws to weaken computer security.
Which, in a democracy, is every citizen.
Security-state information hoarding is incompatible with democracy and liberty.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Which, in a democracy, is every citizen.
Security-state information hoarding is incompatible with democracy and liberty.
Reference please.
The buying and selling of information and secrets has been alive and well in every democracy since the Greeks created it. In fact, ancient Greeks were famous for hiding secrets in creative ways.
Now, if you were to say:
Which, in a democracy, should be every citizen.
Then I would be inclined to agree with you. But, that's a subjective judgement call. If enough of our peers agree, then it should be codified into law.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
**IFF** these governments can show that they can install secure backdoors accessible only to law enforcement, *with the appropriate warrants and judicial oversight*, that cannot be subsequently hacked by nefarious actors, then, and only then, might I even *consider* whatever merits their argmuent may have.
I won't hold my breath.
The encryption is bothering them because they get a box they can't open... what if they don't even have a box?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you want backdoors, you undermine your security. And this is asymmetric. Because the security of your hospitals, power plants, electrical grid, communications infrastructure, emergency response, water treatment plants, military(!) and so on, will also be subverted. In contrast, any adversaries probably don't care about infrastructure because they don't run any.
Basically what these morons are saying is "we want to open our whole infrastructure to abuse by criminals, terrorists and other adversaries".
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
"We are forced to vote for people we don't really know. Most people are ignorant about much of what happens around them that affects their lives. ". Yep, if only we could find that magical pool of smart, intelligent common everyday folk who won't mind having their entire life's history exposed.
How about you go first? Post everything you have ever done here on slashdot for us all to see and consider...and no sneaky leaving out details that might appear unflattering. Be sure to include your name and home address, your occupation, your employer, your salary, your relatives, any organizations you may have joined,etc. Think hard, be complete, and don't be shy, lay it on us!!
Nope. Because, for example in Britain, the police are largely disarmed too. And we like it that way. Total balance. No unfair advantage, no might makes right mentality by either side, civility rules UK.
But I don't expect that to cut any ice with other societies. Different cultures have different views. That's ok, as long as they keep their noses out of ours.
And of course that plays both ways. Brits should be wary of criticizing American culture, it has diverged in the last 300 years and is NOT just Britain with a funny accent. It's as foreign as Africa.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's an endless war that must be fought
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Look at Google's principled stand on censored search-engines in China (*cough*), for example.
Okay, let's look at it. There are search engines in China, big ones like Baidu, so Google not being there is not depriving them of search engines.
So the question becomes, would Google being in China benefit ordinary Chinese people? Access to knowledge is generally regarded as a good thing, despite the censorship. As we have seen when search engines get really good it becomes harder to censor stuff too.
For example, YouTube is blocked. There are some good videos teaching English for Chinese speakers on there, but people in China can't watch them. If Google censored some videos of Tiannamen Square and got YouTube unblocked, Chinese people could see those videos. And videos about how people in the west live, their hobbies, their views on all sorts of things, and their funny cats. That seems like a good thing all round.
Of course we still want the Great Firewall to come down one day, and it could be a cynical money-grab, but overall it's hard to see how Chinese people would be any worse off with a censored Google than with no Google.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As we have seen in the last several elections over the last 50 years pr so, voting does not work. Otherwise we would not have been in this mess.
With the defacto bi-party system, people can select 1 item and vote for that. If any other item agrees with how they voted, you are lucky.
And even then you can only hope that it will influence anything and they do not change their mind and vote against whatever they where for to begin with.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Um, no. Totally disagree with you entirely. There is no recourse from this disagreement.
It's ugly, but it's salvageable. And I must fight your attitude because you're part of the dystopia. Once you surrender your democracy, you're one of *them*, enslaved to ennui and servitude. Enjoy your overlords.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That is an extremely scary thought.
The fight goes between government and companies who buy that government. Nobody cares about the people.
And if those people get ignored enough, they tend to not like it. And that is often followed by a lot of blood all over the place.
I just hope that when (not if) that happens I am not here anymore. So guys, wait another 50-75 years for the next revolution.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I aplaud your willingness to support the freedoms of others even when you would personally prefer they not have them. Our job will have just begun when married lesbian couples and their adopted children can defend their peyote farms with rocket launchers and secure open source encryption, without having broken any laws. Need to work reasonable copyright lengths and right to repair in there somehow. John deer tractor modded to play legally torrented Disney movies maybe?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Privacy that is not absolute is not privacy.
Hence the massive propaganda campaign to disarm the people.
Ask David Koresh or Randy Weaver about how their armaments helped them defend against the government. Your guns will not save you.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
It's only fair and right that Big Brother should know everything we are thinking or saying because Big Brother loves us and has all of our best interests in mind always. Where would we be without Big Brother taking care of us?
We're all pretty goddamned close at this point in the history of the human race to living in such when so-called 'law enforcement', acting more like jackbooted thugs, can start 'demanding' these things in the name of 'national security'.
When strong encryption is OUTLAWED, only OUTLAWS will have strong encryption!
Say it with me now, gentlemen and ladies. These assholes in our respective governments don't give a rat's ASS about us little irrelevant 'citizens', so long as their lust for power and control is always satisfied. Them, them, FUCK THEM sideways with a rusty chainsaw.
issued a statement warning they believe "privacy is not absolute" and tech companies must give law enforcement access to encrypted data or face "technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions.
Privacy never was absolute and it isn't absolute today. That does not mean that privacy should not exist. They can have a backdoor just as soon as they can prove two things. 1) That the government will not have the capacity to abuse said backdoor and 2) that criminals and other bad actors will have no means of accessing said back door.
Of course since both of those things are in actual fact impossible then they can fuck off and go die in a fire. There is no such thing as a secure backdoor by definition. If the cost of security is that the government has to work harder to spy on me then so much the better.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
Hanlon's razor should apply here. Backdoors make law enforcement's job easier, so it's no surprise that most everyone in that business favors it. But that's where we all need to speak up and vote for those who will protect our rights.
Just another day in Paradise
Well, one time pads are secure from compute-driven attacks, when used properly, but they have logistical problems. To be used broadly, you have to distribute the "pad" to everyone, repeatedly sending new "pads" periodically as you use up the old ones, and anyone who gets the new "pad" can read everything, so security is only as good as pad distribution. So, really, one time pads really only work in very specific cases, like communication between a very small group of trusted individuals who meet physically to exchange pads, and who can be trusted never to give a pad to anyone else. So it's not useful for (for example) eCommerce, banking, or general communications.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
"Hey that's an awfully neat tax avoidance scheme you have there, it'd be a shame is something happened to it"
It's an evil plan: Somehow, Switzerland has managed to convince those 5 governments that they have to prevent decent, secure encryption from being commercially viable in those countries. Without decent encryption in their own countries, people will have to seek other countries that are known for their security and discretion where they can keep their data safe -- Switzerland of course!
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
King Edward I "Longshanks":
Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. The dead cost nothing.
"encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily establish lawful access solutions to their products and services." Translated "We can't do anything without back doors, give us back doors or ELSE!"
It's doing better than your country, so I am not sure what you are talking about.