The reason this story even exists is because this issue of "lawful access" is not due to any individual personalities. It's clearly a priority at an institutional level, including the White House:

>Against that backdrop, law enforcement officials have revived talks inside the executive branch over whether to ask Congress to enact legislation mandating the access mechanisms. The Trump White House circulated a memo last month among security and economic agencies outlining ways to think about solving the problem, officials said.

Strongly agree. For those who disagree and see it as personal and temporary thing rather than an inevitable incentive for these institutions, I would like to remind you of the clipper chip debacle of the 90s. Doesn't matter who's in power, it is very tempting to all of em, presenting immediate advantages for governments with only, seemingly, vague longer term disadvantages. The perfect drug.

Constant vigilance, yall

Yes, I'm sure they have found allies and people that agree with them. That doesn't mean the debate is over or lost. If everyone in government agreed on this issue, they would have passed it years ago.

Obama's whitehouse was the reason the FBI never got very far on this issue. Even up until he left, all he could agree to was that it was an issue and solutions should be looked into. Obviously Trump is much more open to passing something on this than Obama was. But note Congress never put a bill on Obama's desk... even the floated Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 got little congressional support, and ended up never being introduced.

Obama's Whitehouse? You mean the one that had the NSA spy on all of us?

The NSA was spying on us before Obama took office.

And Obama didn't end it, and by all accounts expanded on it. Almost every anti-privacy action started by GWB was expanded under Obama. And Trump is why it probably never should have been allowed. The abuse of the Patriot Act in and of itself should be reason enough to fight anything similar, or expansive in the erosion of personal liberty.

Comey wasn't appointed until Obama's fifth year in office, his predecessor (Mueller) held the same position on this issue, served for longer, and was of course a Bush appointee.

And of course his Trump-appointed successor shares the same opinion.

Why are you making this a partisan issue when it's clearly not.

There's no intentional partisanship in my post. My only point was that the issue receded because a key advocate was sidelined (and not because of any particular position by trump).

Mueller certainly was pro-backdoors... but he started out advocating for a backdoor into encrypted communications.. and didn't widen that idea into a backdoor into phones and other devices until his last year in office. Comey picked up where he left off. It's certainly true the FBI and DOJ have produced many people who are pro-backdoors.

This clearly isn't a partisan issue, since there are democrats and republicans that support backdoors.. and democrats and republicans that don't support backdoors. You really do have to pay attention to the names, and support Republicans and Democrats that are against this issue.