According to the nytimes article, the proposal will likely include the requirement that you MUST have a backdoor in your encryption scheme. That effectively bans schemes without backdoors.
So the theory is that the mafia guys they're trying to take down for extortion and murder will meekly submit to government mandated encryption? Sounds plausible to me!
I suppose if they make using non-backdoored encryption a felony, they can convict them of that, even if they don't know the contents of their communications.
Of course, if there is a back door in all encryption between, say, businesses or minority political groups or anyone else who has legitimate reason to encrypt stuff, 1) there's the chance (very likely) that others will discover the back door, and 2) the government (or some of their employees) will probably abuse it at some point.
See, the whole point of encryption is to make your communications SAFE and eliminate these sorts of unknowns. It's a legitimate need, and just because it can be misused doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
That's a good point that I hadn't realized. If this were to pass, they can get you on using encryption without actually charging you with any other crime. That's scary.
I think the theory is that mafia guys will download stuff off the web, which presumably has backdoors they don't know about or understand, instead of hiring coders to write custom chat and email applications...
