"It's hard" is not an argument to circumvent due process. If they need to "tap" encrypted communications, the legal process should be no different than with a POTS phone. Judges are appointed to make those decisions, not law enforcement.
"Federal judge stokes debate about data encryption A federal judge in New York is expanding to the courts the hot debate over whether tech companies should be forced to find ways to unlock encrypted smartphones and other devices for law enforcement. In an unusual move, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York released an order Friday that suggests he would not issue a government-sought order to compel the tech giant Apple to decrypt a customer’s device..........." https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5da20e-6f6f-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
No they dont! They roll over and complain about it! Here's a thought: If the state were to compel me to decrypt my device, could I refuse under the 5th amendment? If so, would compelling corporations to decrypt my device be a way to circumvent the 5th amendment?
All in flux. But they've jailed people for not decrypting their hardware. So bring a toothbrush just in case.
I think they realized that trying to implement this would be a political minefield. They would alienate the right wing libertarian contingent over the potentially unconstitutional over reach. They would also feel the wrath of the left wing pro privacy groups. To compound the issue I am sure that Google, Facebook. etc are all strong campaign contributors. In this case I am thankful for the weakness of politicians. They also probably realized that in nearly every case they dont really need all the backdoors. They have enough access through their existing programs.
The Home Office in the UK has already proposed draft guidelines which regulate what they coyly call "equipment interference". https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._Practice_on_Interception_and_Equipmen....pdf Very poor guidelines, and attempting to introduce practices which are almost certainly unlawful, at least in part, under the guise of guidelines (no debate, no lawmaking). One of the obvious causes of legal concern is that the hacking tools necessarily allow/encourage alteration of the target system, including planting files etc. It's hard to see how a court could seriously consider this as evidentially safe (it's not). The ex-head of MI5 also threatened that, if mass surveillance were curbed significantly, then they'd have to expand their hacking operations.
