> And then you can say, "But I'm using encryption," and the government mandates that they have a back door into all encrypted traffic that goes through their borders.

And then one can compromise and infect millions of such backdoored devices and start feeding (much cheaper than the government enforcement implementation) spoofed data into these systems at scale on these backdoored devices that act like "swatting as a service" and completely nullify any meaning they could get from doing this.

I'm personally really interested in router level malware + 0days on devices as distribution vectors rather than the typical c&c setup.

> They'll go after people hosting it.

Not too hard to imagine one being able to distribute such things across millions of ephemeral devices that are networked and incentivized to host it, all across the world, regardless of illegality in any particular jurisdiction. Technology enables this, without such, it wont be possible.

> I think hackers and engineers really, really want to believe that math trumps policy, but it doesn't

I don't think that at all, I think it comes down to incentives. I was listening to a talk the other day where someone mentioned that for the longest time (since at least wwII), governments pretty much had a monopoly on cryptographers and now there are lots of places/systems that are willing to pay more to apply cutting edge research.

> but let's also fight for government policy that supports it, rather than assuming encryption and open source is a guarantee we can circumvent bad policy.

Much more cheaper for an individual, with more immediate feedback mechanisms doing one vs another. One can also scale a lot faster than another esp since one is very much divorced from implementation.