[PickledJesus]

How do you propose it's implemented though?

The two sides in this debate seem to be talking at cross purposes, which is why it goes round and round.

A: "We need to do this, however it's done, it was possible before so it must be possible now"

B: "You can't do this because of the implementation details (i.e. you can't break encryption without breaking it for everyone)"

ad infinitum.

Regardless of my own views on this, it seems to me that A needs to make a concrete proposal

[ZeroConcerns]

Lawful intercept laws exist, and they've been sort-of functional for ages.

Apps like Signal don't entirely fall within the scope of these, which is the cause of the current manic attempts to grab more powers.

My point is that these powers grabs should be resisted, and that new services should be brought into the fold of existing laws.

The prevailing opinion here seems to be that, instead, state hacking should be endorsed. Which, well...

[qwopmaster]

The prevailing opinion here seems to be that we’d really like for there to not be an omnipresent panopticon because protect the children or terrorists or, apparently, malware. If your imagination is particularly lacking on how this might be weaponized just remember that antifa is now designated as an terrorist organization in US, so you better not be a suspected member of it — as in, you best not have sent a buddy a message on signal about how those tiki torch carrying nazi larpers aren’t exactly great guys, or off to a black site you go for supporting terrorism.

If you want to prosecute people send physical goons, which are of limited quantity, rather than limitless, cheaper and better by the day pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything.