Michael Motyka wrote:

But a couple of questions :

Do you doubt that many in law enforcement think that universally backdoored systems would be right and good for society?

Only if they first define the terms for "society" - once the definition of such has been twisted to a desirable position (apparently one of a superior, over-riding patriotism in the US), then the introduction of backdoors becomes infintely more arguable. However, should law enforcement be distinguished from law making? Are the motivations of those that want to form a new society different to those that just want to lock up the people who don't? The SSSCA is a prime example of universal back entrancing - an introduction of government-certified security schemes? What chance would there be that any, if not all of them, would have some kind of unpublicised (at least at first) get-in clause? This scares me more than any possible security flaw... When the state becomes a higher priority than the people within it, Bad Things happen.

Is it easier to achieve the dream of monitored systems if the OS business is highly monopolistic or if it is chaotic?

Business monopoly is one way of doing it. Legal presidence over the parts you actually want to control, in order to start eating at everything else is a lot more effective. And easier to maintain. .g