I'm not suggesting we shouldn't push for new / changing of laws, but does it really alter the trajectory?
There are probably a lot of companies that find backdoor type requirements burdensome, and are only complying because the law is secret, uncertain or unfavorable to freedom. If you passed a law that said, "Complying with any request, including those issued by government agencies, to insert a backdoor into or otherwise weaken the security of a cryptographic protocol is illegal" and imposed some steep fines for violators, then companies would be in the opposite position from the one they are now, and they cautious position would be one where they say, "Sorry, government, if anyone found out we did that we could get shut down or lose a ton of money."
That said, an engineering solution is a much more attractive one to me than a social/administrative solution. Hopefully end-to-end encryption will become widespread and there won't be much that anyone can do about it. Still, the problem is that security is really hard, so having engineering and administrative controls is probably better than just one of the two (i.e. you're always encrypting your traffic end-to-end, but if something leaks out of a side-channel it's illegal for the NSA to be looking for it anyway, so both controls have to fail in order for the NSA to snoop on you).
This also is the first time that the NSA lost a vote.
Just want to thank sinak and everyone who deployed https://shutthebackdoor.net/ on dime.
Internet based activism is starting to have an effect.
So it depends on whether a Senator introduces amendments to FY15 Defense Appropriations that will affect this portion.
We have enough liberty-minded Senators to get this done if public opinion is behind them. I'm pleased with the strength of the support so far, but the old guard will fight this tooth and nail.
