>>>>I think you're missing the point. Currently, if you communicate with me using encryption, GCHQ et. al. can say "Aw shoot, we can't read that one" or demand the key(s) from you to let them read it. Although, in the latter case I believe there are ways to encrypt communications such that the users never know the keys.
>>>>
>>>>The new proposal is that your act of communicating with me using encryption is an offence, unless the government already has the keys.
>>>
>>>The burden of proof is on the government. They need to prove that they don't have the keys.
>>
>>Of course. For proof, all they have to do is ask you for them. Suddenly the onus is on you to prove the government can't already decrypt the message. Now you have to prove a negative, instead of them. Nice, eh?
>>
>>And even if they did already have the keys, they could still charge you with an offence just by asking you and pretending they don't. Mmm, yummy. Remind you of any governments in recent memory?
>
>All of them?

And yet people keep buying the politicians BS and voting for their party vs. the other party (which is virtually indistinguishable from their party in all but name) .... go figure.