[curryst]

Correct, however we're entering into an entirely different area of argument here. Historically, physical safeguards have been utilized, and any physical safeguard can be overcome give a moderate amount of funding and/or time. I'm not aware of any period where a safeguard would need to be intentionally fundamentally flawed in order to allow the government to proceed with their collection of evidence.

The question becomes whether it is within the power of the government to mandate that flaw, or whether they will need to find some other approach. There is also a question of freedom of speech, as it has historically been held that you can be forced to not express something, however you cannot be forced to express something. In regards to key signing, it could be said that that is an expression of authenticity that you endorse whatever is being signed. Can the government force you to give that endorsement? Does the government's power to collect evidence supercede your right to freedom of speech (or the abdication of speech)?

[ethbro]

The physical vs virtual component is the most fascinating part of the issue for me. And the fact that "make a virtual thing that behaves like the previous physical thing" is impossible / extremely ill-advised.

We've seen the popular media analogies gradually become more accurate in their understanding that this is a novel question. And, admittedly, hats off to Tim Cooke and Apple for getting more technically accurate descriptions out in the media.

We do seem to be having a more productive discussion socially this time around.

I think the last major rebalancing of rights due to new technology concerned copyable copywritten digital media and... we decided to make a lot of things that are technically trivial illegal. Not the best message to kids that "these things are illegal, but easy to do and unenforceable."