That's another advantage of forcing the snoops back to "direct access" methods -- every so often one of them will get caught red-handed snooping on the wrong (i.e. clearly innocent and rich/influential) target, re-focusing attention on them and forcing another round of retrenchment until it blows over.
Now, if a backdoor is found by the bad guys, it will be used almost immediately to destroy a company.
If it's found by really bad guys (e.g. North Korea on a day when Dear Supreme Grand High Panjandrum is feeling especially trollish), it can be publicly circulated to destroy every company.
Anybody can yell "Police" or wear a jacket reading "Police". I recall reading about at least one home-invasion gang doing just that.
Forcing them to switch to "direct access" methods puts pressure on them to follow the law. First, as I noted in my earlier comment, the non-scaling time and manpower costs (each tail, bug, etc requires significant additional resources) forces careful selection of targets. Second, "direct access" methods put the snoops at a nontrivial risk of getting caught and/or leaving recoverable evidence each time they use them illegally.
"Direct access" methods (tailing people, planting surveillance devices, etc) do not scale anywhere near as easily as network surveillance -- each "direct access" target requires a significant fixed cost in resources and manpower. This imposes discipline on the snoops and forces them to pick and choose actual suspects instead of trying to scoop up everything.
Hey, Bob, attend this class, make a list of attendees. Oh man, this is too easy!
It was easy; the instructor gave me a copy of the list. Now, we just need to pull up the physical and e-mail addresses of Mr. Dover, Mr. Jass, Mr. Jablome....
Link to Original Source
That's one advantage of mostly cooperative board games where there might be a hidden "traitor" among the players who wins if the group loses (e.g. Shadows Over Camelot, Battlestar Galactica). With that possibility on the table, players can't just trust somebody else to make decisions and have to pay attention to what everyone else is doing (usually in these games, exposing the traitor has some reward, at least insofar as it curtails his ability to continue undermining the group).
webmail kinda implies that the provider will either be storing the key or at the very least be able to access it
Obviously they need access to the PUBLIC keys in order to encrypt messages to the designated recipient. The whole point of public-key cryptography is that revealing the public key doesn't compromise security.
"secret 3G/4G reception inside of the CPU"
Ruh roh! I'd better put my CPU in the middle of a metal box or something....
The bill was reportedly "introduced by John Federico, a cable industry lobbyist."
I didn't see this on SlashDot when it was introduced, but the Internet definitely responded to the threat of damage."
Link to Original Source
Maybe the MAIFAA already did that "study", and makes sure to remind him about "those pictures of you and the goat" when handing him the latest bill he is instructed to introduce on their behalf.
"Didya hear about Lamar Smith's bill to create another Obama-appointed czar?"
A state trooper needs the description of a gunman recently seen in the area? OK.
A state trooper needs to get his quote of parking tickets filled ASAP? Not so much.
If the companies that sell X have access to a 15-year supply, they aren't going to spend money looking for more. As a result, anybody who looks at known reserves and doesn't understand the reality described in the previous sentence is going to run around yelling "ONOZ WE'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF X IN 15 YEARS OMG!!!1!"