All electronic communication means essentially any words going over the internet. All transmissions would have to be stored in a form where they could be decrypted by someone other than the end users. The law wasn’t saying “You have to be able to flip a switch on a person, and all things they send from that point on must be able to be decrypted”, it was saying “All communication must be able to be decrypted whenever the government asks you for it.” All information being stored in a way that is meant to be decrypted for government use means the encryption is inherently untrustworthy.
The law was maybe saying that, but that doesn't change what I'm saying. Which boils down to "I disagree with the response we have given, we should have been negociating rather than just saying no". Should I go ahead with a disclamer that says which open source encryption products used by governments that I'm involved into? Not sure, my point is: we have their attention, why use it to just say no when we could negociate and make outdoors security a feature in addition too online security.
