At this point, the NYT is just a mouthpiece for the executive branch. They've been pushing a ridiculous anti-encryption, anti-privacy agenda since Glenn Greenwald.
I was generally thinking about the things Glenn Greenwald describes in his book, [No Place to Hide](http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance-ebo...). For example, even though Greenwald is a respect journalist and regular contributor to the Guardian, when the Snowden scandal first broke, the NYT insisted on referring to him only as a 'blogger.' They also published a lot of op-eds bashing Greenwald's work as dangerous and non-journalistic.
Sorry, I don't have any better links or sources right now. I'm on mobile.
Most journalists probably don't know the first thing about encryption or the internet in general, so it's not surprising that they would fail to represent the views commonly expressed here.
No, I didn't miss it. I'll admit that the article isn't directly calling for an end to encryption, but, at least the way I read it, there's some subtext about it. It seems like they're approaching encryption with the assumption that it's bad but we can't do anything about it, not that encryption is a good tool being used for evil.
> A trickier issue is presented by the encryption deployed by Apple, Facebook, Google and a range of smaller services that thwart law enforcement’s ability to access a target’s communications, even with a court order.
Why do they describe it as 'thrwarting' law enforcement? It's not thrwarting anything, it's just not providing them a back door.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this article feels like it has something between the lines.
