[JohnMakin]

> The problem with this form of obfuscation is it also impacts other industries (legitimate functions) including areas of national security.

I'm aware that "national security" is often invoked in these types of discussions, and a little aware more than I think the general populace at how valuable some of this data is to intelligence operations. However, I would counter that by saying perhaps someone should consider whether it's a problem that such "critical" national security functions belong in the hands of companies that control the flow of such data for profit to anyone with a pocketbook, and ponder whether this is actually working to cause net help or harm for national security. I would argue strongly the latter, to the profitability of the people that control such data and contribute a lot of money to the elections of people that put forth their agendas, but this isn't the place to do so.

[thewanderer1983]

I agree with your conclusion. There have been similar discussions around backdoors and “lawful intercept” systems in the past. The intelligent argument didn't win there either. Then you get Salt Typhoon, and maybe people will rethink them.

[thewanderer1983]

Some areas you might want to consider looking into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2022/06/15/using_snarks.htm...

Obviously this requires companies to embrace said technologies.