They wouldn't need to outlaw or ban all cryptography, only the particular communication systems that don't have "lawful intercept" capability. There are already laws for this on the books, although they've generally been interpreted in such a way so as not to apply to non-telephony products so far.
TBH it probably wouldn't require that much Orwellian apparatus; you just make the software slightly harder to use than it already is today, and network effects basically ensure that only people who are really interested in communications without government interception (who the government is presumably interested in) are using it. Then you can start doing endpoint attacks, deanonymization via compromised downloads, etc.
The government's -- and I don't mean just the U.S.'s, but most large governments', I think -- ideal for Internet communications is something similar to the telephone network circa 1975. They're fine with privacy between one individual and another (i.e. keeping your conversations private from your neighbors), but they aren't going to be satisfied with any technology that prevents wiretaps by state-controlled apparatus.
I am not exactly bullish on the ability of technology or technologists to resist this, over the long run. Unless there is a widespread and overwhelming realization on the part of individuals that governments shouldn't have this ability, and I don't think that consensus exists even in the liberal West if you frame the question even moderately advantageously to the government, then they will get it. There will always be pockets of noncompliance, and an ensuing cat-and-mouse game, but the steady state will likely be one that deters mainstream usage.
And if we really are seeing the end of Anglo-American geopolitical dominance in favor of countries whose political systems emphasize stability and harmony over individual rights and dissent, then it becomes very difficult to see that consensus ever manifesting itself at a meaningful global level.
> Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection, something candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have also called for that was banned with the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which Cruz supported.
Well I don't think I'm going to agree given the only person who made it to the GE is a guy who supports surveillance.
RSA, ATT, and Verizon all took bribes from the NSA to screw over their users. At least one worked with DEA as well. These were leaked in prominent media with exposure to millions of American consumers and business people. So, let's test your theory:
RSA Net Income (2011-2015): 426M 320M -306M -115M 79M
Verizon Net same period: 2.4B 875M 11.5B 9.63B 17.88B
ATT Net same period: 3.94B 7.26B 18.25B 6.22B 13.35B
RSA took quite a hit but it could be market as well. I don't know what it's status was pre-Snowden but much of hit comes during year of the leaks. Revenue dropped a billion or two with profits turning to losses but rebounding into $75 million in 2015. Verizon and ATT are doing great. Other companies that are managed profitably that cooperate tightly with Washington are Microsoft, IBM, Google, and Oracle. Their net incomes are in the billions.
So, I think the market data indicates you're wrong even in the worst scenario for working with the surveillance state. Also, the more lock-in the business has, the better it does despite any evil choice it makes. Rule of thumb.
