They seem to be trying to strike a good balance here, but especially the encryption part is likely to rile people up. And in some cases it's totally impossible.
I actually feel kinda bad for them.
The "backdoor" (a intentional bug) will have to be part of the communication protocols and therefor present in every data stream which makes this protocol less secure. Any such backdoor WILL BE in time be open to any hacker, cracker, foreign spy, and anyone who can run a simple script?
That is a balance between what and what?
You really think a world with no law enforcement is a better one?
Before you misunderstand me, there is no way they will get what they want, but I can still understand their problem.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.
I am talking only about the ability of the FBI to conduct court ordered wiretaps.
Yes, you are only talking about court ordered wiretaps, but I'm wary about actual implementation of wiretaps, and for good reason, as I posted about factual historic illegal wiretapping as recently as 2002.
Yes, I certainly did read the article. I take an interest in matters of politics, government vigilance, and rights infringements I wish more Americans would. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for legal law enforcement, and aiding those tasked with doing their job while not trampling civil rights and liberties. I happen to think there are wise and unwise ways to go about it. For example, suspending habeas corpus, the right to due process, as George Bush did by citing national security, and which was reversed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, I think is unwise. I also don't think terrorists will stop and think, oh well, they've got their country wiretapped, so there is no way to carry out attacks now...
The need for a court-order isn't part of the FBI's position in this argument but is a historical/constitutional mandate that has existed for some time. And law enforcement has shown a willingness to ignore this limitation in practice (see the AT&T case).
Their position, what you called "balanced", is simply that they need the technological ability to tap all phones everywhere. There's nothing balanced (or sane or ..etc) about this demand. Society and technological feasibility may balance their demand for them but that's different from what you originally said.
And, yes, I read the article...