Reads like a paper proposing a perpetual motion machine
It is clear that there can be no compromise. Data is either encrypted or it is not. No matter in what way the encryption algorithm is borked, criminal hackers will eventually find the bork. Borked encryption is exactly equivalent to no encryption at all. Actually, it is worse, a false sense of security. It is also clear that most online services are not viable without encryption. Basically, we either have unborked encryption or we pull the plug and stop using the internet. So like a perpetual motion proposal, their paper is entirely based on the false assumption that borked encryption is even possible. I wonder if that lot has written a paper about curing a headache by cutting off the head.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
