> since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.
Their IM services aren't encrypted by default, at least with their default clients. Therefore nothing stops law enforcement from requesting the data with the court order. And presumably they already collect literally all open communication anyway.
However anyone can of course use OTR, ZRTP and etc. with normal standalone clients through these same services. So they now want to request building backdoors into those protocols? Or they want to make encryption illegal? Or what is this really about?
According to the article, at this point they've given up on the idea of disabling end-to-end encryption or holding keys in escrow, due to the concern that hackers could use the same backdoors.
From what I can tell, the proposal is that a judge would be order to order a technically-feasible wiretap, and be able to fine the company for not complying.
The problem is that "technically feasible" would be up to the judge, so the company would need to be able to explain via their lawyers why a given wiretap could not actually be implemented.
The 2010 proposal included key escrow or some form of a back door. They seem to have dropped that from this latest proposal, probably because they did not want to revive the same old fight.
Their IM services aren't encrypted by default, at least with their default clients. Therefore nothing stops law enforcement from requesting the data with the court order. And presumably they already collect literally all open communication anyway.
However anyone can of course use OTR, ZRTP and etc. with normal standalone clients through these same services. So they now want to request building backdoors into those protocols? Or they want to make encryption illegal? Or what is this really about?