Reply to post:

Just from the words quoted in this article, I applaud Mr Cook for the straight-forward, plain language way he has expressed this.

Not that others haven't before, of course, but I this is well put:

"If you halt or weaken encryption, the people you hurt are not the folks that want to do bad things. It’s the good people. The other people know where to go."

This is really one of the core problems. You can argue any of the other points about the downsides of these laws and thus why the price for this is far too high but even if there was next-to-no impact on ordinary civilians and businesses, the plan still wouldn't achieve the stated goals!

So, even if, somehow, they manage to address every possible concern and again, somehow, manage to make the protections ironclad then that will great and all, but it still won't f%$king work!

By analogy, you can imagine these proposed measures and laws as a proposal to put some new buses on the roads. These buses are slow, noisy, exceptionally fuel-inefficient, generate copious amounts of pollution and take up two lanes each, disrupting normal commuter traffic.

So, people complain that the buses are utterly unsuited and will have a big negative impact.

But, regardless of all that, however, the buses are run on roads that have no bus stops or footpaths or pedestrian traffic and have no seats or doors or even room to stand and so would useless for ferrying passengers anyway. So really, even if the buses we reworked such that all the concerns about efficiency and pollution and congestion were addressed and solved, the buses would still be pointless and it would be a big fat waste of time and money.