[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.

[deogeo]

The topic is government access to private communications - encryption is an implementation detail.

[thestartup]

No, the name of the G7 document is "Combating the use of the internet for terrorist and violent extremist purposes". Scanning the PDF, there doesn't appear to be any discussion about microphones placed in vehicles or residences.