Yes, we have been through this before. It seems like it never ends. ->HERE<- is the rebuttal to Jim Baker and anyone's else's argument that there should be back doors in encryption. Very interesting read I might add.
Well, it was a long and tough read - but the most striking thing about it was the apparent blindness and insouciance to harms of the empire he represented - they believe they are the good guys, and should protect us from all evil. Hmmm. The notion of the state doing a benign and competent job of protection would be laughable except that's what they believe. That it happens to bolster their empire and career is nothing to do with it.
Ok... I admit, I sorta skimmed the main body of the article and really only read in full the conclusion... but isn't the point of the article that he is now willing to accept and "[e]mbrace the reality" of the proliferation of strong encryption without Congressional or regulatory-mandated backdoors?
