The stated intention of these bills is unachievable. I don't mean technologically - key escrow is certainly possible. I mean as a practical matter, given the makeup of the commercial sector in the US. The capability to render plaintext to authorities on request is incompatible with how large companies handle information security.
That being the case, why is this bill still being pursued, given that it's a dead letter?
1. By continuing the kabuki dance, legislators and regulators may hope to spook companies like Apple into self-regulating, to avoid public regulation. Good luck with that.
2. Legislators might be doing this mostly for show.
3. Legislators might keep pushing the bill until all the meaningful bits have been planed off (an option compatible with (2)), and further might not realize that their resulting product is toothless.
NB: I am talking my book a little here, since I'm a party to several bets that meaningful crypto regulation in the US will never happen.
That being the case, why is this bill still being pursued, given that it's a dead letter?
1. By continuing the kabuki dance, legislators and regulators may hope to spook companies like Apple into self-regulating, to avoid public regulation. Good luck with that.
2. Legislators might be doing this mostly for show.
3. Legislators might keep pushing the bill until all the meaningful bits have been planed off (an option compatible with (2)), and further might not realize that their resulting product is toothless.
NB: I am talking my book a little here, since I'm a party to several bets that meaningful crypto regulation in the US will never happen.