Thread by @ErrataRob

So this paper from Carnegie "moving the conversation forward" is laughably wrong. In this thread, I'm going to show out why.
carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/10/mov…

The phrase "no absolutist positions" is a code word, meaning those of us opposing encryption backdoors are being "absolutist". But in fact it's the other side who is being absolutist, claiming that law enforcement must have absolutist access.

A frequent claim by law enforcement is that ABSOLUTELY nobody is above the law, that law enforcement has ABSOLUTE right (given a warrant) to investigate everything.

Later in that paragraph, they set out a absolutist, totalitarian view of the roll of government: that the state is everything, and that everything comes from the state:

We libertarians reject this absolutist viewpoint, of course. Governments "promoting the interests of business" invariably promote the interests of the well-connected businesses to the detriment of those who aren't bribing the government.

The same is true of "security", and we see that taking place in Honk Kong right now, with daily protests against a totalitarian police state of exactly the form promoted by the Carnegie document.

I would suggest that that law enforcement give up it's absolutist claim that they need 100% access to everything. I suggest that they accept the position that they can still protect the public without being able to decrypt every phone.