I'm glad that you're arguing with that particular interpretation of my comment in good faith. It is refreshing to see.
However, what I meant to convey is this: despite the obvious problems with such a program, the government sees value in control and centralization of the country's secure communications. If we ignore the obvious problems with "We have all the keys" & "Secure communication" and look to recent initiatives and programs with similar contradictory goals, we've been told by politicians that they were implemented because everyone else is doing it and it's necessary for national security.
I see how nonsensical this is, but if a similar program is pushed, this is how it would be pitched to the public.
However, what I meant to convey is this: despite the obvious problems with such a program, the government sees value in control and centralization of the country's secure communications. If we ignore the obvious problems with "We have all the keys" & "Secure communication" and look to recent initiatives and programs with similar contradictory goals, we've been told by politicians that they were implemented because everyone else is doing it and it's necessary for national security.
I see how nonsensical this is, but if a similar program is pushed, this is how it would be pitched to the public.