[dead]
Regardless of the merits of the particular case, the possibility of doing so exists and this is bad enough even when it is a private company and isn't being kept secret by court order like LavaBit, nor likewise when we have evidence of agents misusing their powers to spy on people they fancy AKA "LOVEINT", nor likewise when we have evidence of legally required technological measures becoming abusable by hackers e.g. the downgrade attacks to the 40-bit "export grade" cyphers from the 90s still popping up in the 2010s.
"Fixable in practice" is really not a sufficient rebuttal when the people tasked with actually building this stuff have given clear and specific reasons why building this stuff safely is impossible.
That the government think it's totally fine if the government have the power to listen in on everything is not especially surprising. The problem is most people don't actually trust the government with this power.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09506.pdf
Do you have a reasonable counterargument to any of the points they make in this work?
I am familiar with this area of technology but by no means an expert. However the vast majority of people who appear to actually have experience building and running these systems all seem to disagree with the government that this is actually cool and safe and generally give much better explanations as to why that's the case than the government do. And so I side with them.
Citing more vague government sources that don't directly contradict the work of the people building the things isn't a very convincing argument to me.
If they go for the former, and implement their system in line with the principles that Levy and Robinson set out, would you change your mind? As this would be an indication that actually it can work in the field, if the political will is there.