You know, yes, you can always argue that a backdoor can be built that's more secure, you know, and more difficult to get to and only law enforcement's going to get there. But nobody in the field of security believes that's ultimately going to provide this same protection that a tight end-to-end solution has without a backdoor.

So end-to-end encryption, keeps things encrypted and that means that law enforcement, without a warrant, cannot read that information.

Sure, end-to-end encryption means that whether it's a phone call we're on or an email message we're sending or any form of electronic communication, that the content of that communication is encrypted from your device, such as your phone or PC, unto the other person's device at the other side, wherever they might be on the planet Earth.

You know, yes, you can always argue that a backdoor can be built that's more secure, you know, and more difficult to get to and only law enforcement's going to get there. But nobody in the field of security believes that's ultimately going to provide this same protection that a tight end-to-end solution has without a backdoor.

My beliefs really haven't changed since I was in government. If anything, it gave me appreciation for how challenging it is for the government to balance and play the roles that it needs to, both wanting to keep the nation secure, both having the rights to collect extensive intelligence overseas, less so within the country.

We're not all on the same page here. So most of us in the technology community are opposed to what we call backdoors that would allow law enforcement to tap in.

Now, with a warrant, they can always go to the information service provider and attempt to get that information. But even then, they may not be able to because the party selling the encryption services may be a third party and may not even know who the parties are that are communicating.