Should the government require tech companies to provide backdoor access to encrypted communications for national security purposes?

Yes

No but encrypted communication providers should have to provide the information of an individual if there is a proper warrant for the suspected individual tied to an event to be presented in court hearings.

I am skeptical of government officials' ability to use this information responsibly, regardless of party.

No, since backdoors can always be exploited by bad actors, but technology companies must be held in contempt of justice if they refuse to provide information in a timely manner with harsh penalties

Only in the moment where it is needed should backdoor access be granted; if there is no current national security concern backdoor access should not be given as it could be abused.

Yes, when it comes to warrants specific to this information and with proper security protocols on access to the into and adhering to human rights

There should be specific and limited conditions that need to be met, and some form of accountability is necessary.

But access must be consistent with criminal law protections and strict anti-abuse regulations should be simultaneously passed

HELL NO. Digital services are vulnerable to all intruders all across the world. Have some mystical backdoor access is just BEGGING for someone from some obscure part of the world to come knocking the door down

No, I don't think so, because the more accesses there are available, the easier it is for someone not intended to see the communication to hack in.

yes but they have to be specific on whos files the need and what there using it for otherwise it should not be used.

No because if someone were to go rogue such as a government agent they could shut the world down if they knew even a few of the big company’s back doors

I believe tech companies should only give access to private chats to the government if they are suspected to be running illegal activity. Privacy is a right, not a privilege and law-abiding citizens should not have their privacy breached.

no unless the guy the government is trying to catch is a terrorist leader or on the fbi wanted list type of level threat

they should attempt to flag keywords related to possible threats, and evaluate through the backdoor from there: otherwise, no.

It’s iffy, maybe not an actual backdoor since vulnerabilities would skyrocket. Something like it though.

They must rely on trustworthy tech companies in so credibility makes security more secure and sensible. Reports state that a government with tech companies for security purposes have reduced crimes by 50%.

No, companies should be required to provide information but not build a backdoor that could be exploited

Possibly, if there are proper criteria to adhere to regarding privacy issues and enough evidence to prov necessary, including warrants.

I don't think it is the most important thing but it would be good if they could have some way of accessing it to identify people they need to get

the government can be told but they don't have the right to tell it to anyone and they can't force you to change things.

I believe certain tech companies should depending on the severity of the use for the site's/websites

having a backdoor at all leaves room for anybody to get in with enough effort, while I think this would be beneficial, the risks outweigh the benefits.

I think a company in the case of hefty suspicion of national danger should fully assist the government in investigation but just a backdoor given entirely sounds easily and readily abusable for corrupt purposes I like my privacy

Yes, only if there is doubt or even evidence that the message sender or receiver is a whistleblower or is doing something that is harming the national interest.

It's iffy, as it could be used for good, i.e. stopping child porn rings on telegram, but it could also restrict freedom of speech and helping people. i.e. using telegram to contact people in Gaza or Russia or North Korea who need help or outside information.

It might help security, but it also gets rid of privacy, and there could also be a bad person that could exploit this power.

I think it would'nt be to bad, the only thing is that people would have less privacy and poeple would also be able to hack into the comanies

Its hard to say. while people deserve their right to privacy we need to think about the whole picture

The government should have to apply for information access and disclose when access is granted to the information owner.

No, because any backdoor can be found and abused and this would essentially mean we have ZERO encryption.

Yes, but the definition and scope of what constitutes national security should be comprehensively worded.

No, but if there is a really good reason to need temporary access and a court gives a warrant then yes

This determines so heavily on the specific situation and so I don't think its valid to say yes/no only.

It depends on how severe the situation is for the government to need to access encrypted communications, as it could be a breach of privacy for citizens.

This is not a yes or no answer. there usually is a backdoor anyway, but its whether it should be given to the government for use.

Any company operating against national security should be wound down.

I prefer to keep a neutral position in politics afare.

Depends on how serious the situation is and what governments are asking for

This needs to be further considered. Privacy is very important and this access could be misused. The criteria to get access to encrypted information must be very specific and stringent and only in the case where there is known criminal activity and intent.

Yes, but with very specific parameters for access.

Yes, but it needs to be heavily secured to prevent hacking.

as long as they stay out of private citizens security without a legit warrant for national security only. no spying on people.

It depends on what encrypted data, if it was aspects of social media then yes but if it was like credit card info or valuable financial info then no

Absolutely not because it can increase the chances of the network users who are cautious about those kinds of things.

As long as the conversations can’t be accessed by anyone except the government and the company, yes.

I believe encrypted communications should only be accessed without permission from government agencies if there is valid reason or evidence that something illegal is going on within

depending on how the tech company shows themselves. If they don't brand as a secretive chaat place then yes, there should be nothing that they need to keep themselves to, however if they pride themselves on being completely secretive, than I think there should be some monitoring however then it wouldn't be a secretive chat place

Yes, but there should be strict guidelines as to what they can identify as a national security threat

no, however, should security be an issue, the tech company should willingly help investigations by providing the information requested

In the right context , yes. but should only be used sparingly for ongoing investigations, not to use against everyday citizens. Only with a warrant.

In case of emergency, they technically SHOULD be able to have access to this information. Emergencies that may end in a life lost or if a problem arises and it is seen as a danger to human beings.

In dire emergency scenarios (e.g., loss of life), I believe all companies must fully comply with the government in the interest of protecting national security.

I feel that if given a reason for backdoor access then a company should give it to the government but only once a fair enough reason is made. But they don’t need to give access if they have no reason to.

Yes, but only when there has been a major breach within the tech comomay that would require investigation and/or intervention

Yes, with some anonymity as with no anonymity the power in the wrong hands could cause retribution over whistleblowers and those who oppose the government

No but the government should have strict policies with severe penalties that tech companies are to report threats to national security.

Governments should have access to backdoors in order to protect the nation and its people but it should only be used if an individual is suspected or found to be plotting something that would hurt the nation or its people.

Yes, but there needs to be regulation and law that make sure that the access to the information is strictly for national security, and not used as an excuse to gain personal information.

Again, you let government mix into your freedom of speech in any form you’re gonna lose your freedom in the long run.

Yes but the government should have to request of the judicial system and prove the need to do so. That would ensure that it isn't done for other reasons

It would depend on how/why the backdoor can be accessed by the government and how big of a privacy breach it would be to the public users

No, the government's access to private information on everyone through this could be exploitative. However, if the intentions were strictly for security purposes then yes. But that's removed from reality so no.

It depends on the specific case. For terrorism, yes. For most other things, no. Also, there needs to be a judicial process in place. They can't just straight-up demand it and expect immediate compliance. It's not enforceable for many online services.

Yes, but such national security purposes must be clearly outlined and that outline should be provided to tech companies.

yes but there are major risks that come with this.

yes and no. Yes in case of a nation wide emergency but no because there's people in the federal government who are involved in some shady stuff and hackers can get into government databases already.

yes and no, while backdoor encryptions can be helpful especially if something goes wrong there's nothing that can stop certain hackers. Hackers can get into government databases and enact ransomware.

Yes, but strict regulations on when/what situations that would make them need to.

Yes, but only when the situation places someone at high risk of death or permanent damage

I suppose it depends on the government's situation and the moral intentions the government has to use this tool.

If the people involved are under suspicion of such illegal activities. This should be used for migrants.

If given a choice, would you opt in or out of allowing surveillance access to your digital communications, and why?

What are your thoughts on sacrificing some privacy for the sake of potentially preventing crime or terrorism?

Is there a point where you believe national security measures can go too far in accessing personal information?

Can you think of a time when you would have wanted law enforcement to have more access to information to solve a crime?

Would you trust your government with a 'key' to everyone's private messages, under strict regulations and oversight?

Reflecting on historical abuses of power, how do you feel about giving authorities more access to private communications?

How would you feel if your personal messages could be read by someone else, even if it was for national security?

Do you believe there's a way to provide security agencies the information they need without violating individual privacy?

If you had to design a system, how would you ensure authorities could fight crime and terrorism without overstepping into unnecessary surveillance?