[thestartup]

What about developing a three-party system where the third party doesn't have any "master key" (to prevent a single key from compromising the encryption system), and perhaps the third party has something akin to a "slow hash" that is time consuming to decrypt (to prevent bulk real-time decryption by NSA, etc.) but still allows LEO access when truly needed? Maybe the third party's encryption would, in this sense, be much more difficult to decrypt, so that the three-party system would not be significantly weaker than the two-party system?

There is already unbreakable encryption publicly available for those who wish to use it. I personally feel that it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party systems at any national/global scale.

[acct1771]

Why would you be trying to enable this?

[thestartup]

As stated, in my opinion, it's irresponsible to deploy unbreakable two-party encryption at a national/global level. IMO, authorities should have a way to decrypt the encryption used by the masses, when needed.

Further, it's clear that policy makers will typically push for such a mechanism. If such three-party systems are to be deployed, it would further your privacy cause to help to develop such a system, if your efforts to push back without compromise do not bear fruit.

[deogeo]

Is it also irresponsible to allow cars and houses without always-listening microphones planted in them?

[thestartup]

Not relevant to the topic.

[deogeo]

Why not? People could say anything to each-other in private - shouldn't the authorities have a way of finding out what was said, when needed? How does the medium of communication change things?

[thestartup]

The topic is about encryption, not microphones.