When I originally read the blog post, I thought it was broader than just decrypting communication. I thought that it was proposing a global backdoor for all encryption, instead it's just reviving the '90's idea of the Clipper chip.
The original article is interesting in that the affirmative viewpoint is all about increasing fear
We can’t fight terrorism and violent crime in the dark. But that is where we’re headed if law-enforcement and intelligence officials are denied the legal access they need.
While the counter-point is based on actual fact and laws. Like the Constitution:
The fact that the Constitution offers a process for obtaining a search warrant does not mean it should therefore be illegal to make an unbreakable lock or use an unbreakable code. These are two distinct concepts.
Amazingly, the FBI post takes until the third paragraph to mention terrorism. It's a bit like a veiled threat. We must give the FBI and law enforcement the tools they require or the terrorists will win. And the paedophiles!
We welcome the discussion of how to continue to ensure civil liberties while protecting the safety of the American people in this dynamic new context.
It's understandable that law enforcement agencies should request tools that make their job easier. However, because of the scope for misuse caused by creating backdoors in encryption technology, the government must resist these calls.
Life is hard. The FBI shouldn't get a free pass to break encryption.