That's no conspiracy theory. A conspiracy involves secret collaboration.

The well-known negotiation technique of anchoring is all that theory is. It seems plausible to me.

Do you have any idea where it could be leading? I've been thinking about it on and off for the past few days but nothing comes to mind, I don't have enough context to form any opinion.

I'd sure love to hear what Schneier thinks about it.

I don't know where it's leading, or if it's even leading anywhere. For some people, gaining power over others is an end unto itself, not a means leading to some other end.

I meant, what 'reasonable' thing will our gvernment ask for after being rebuked for this outrageous request

Anchoring involves defining the value of something where it was previously undefined. What you describe is simply an extreme initial offer. You're right that it isn't necessarily sinister.

An extreme initial offer manipulates the "anchoring and adjustment heuristic" defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

The Overton Window Concept is a potential anchoring case for this law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

One might even say collusion ;)

I've heard the argument that this is an effort to get some kind of "middle ground" before. The problem is there can be no middle ground here - only the illusion of one. Either law enforcement has the right to do X or they don't - if they are allowed to require a backdoor on skype, how could they not be allowed to require a backdoor anywhere?

The real scenario would be legislation justified with the argument "we want unlimited legal power but we promise to use it just a little" - and this kind of promise always turns out to be bogus.

Somebody's been reading Robert Cialdini.

+1 because I got it.