My point though, sir, is this: It could happen.
What I'm getting at is that information that is meant to be encrypted and is itself encrypted could be compromised beyond end-to-end encryption. We're not just talking about end-to-end encryption because we were told that would introduce a systemic vulnerability if somebody had to disrupt that. I'm talking about data that is encrypted, but there is nonetheless a road map to it in the provider.
What I'm saying and what you're telling me that's of concern is that encryption that is not end-to-end that is provided by the service provider could then be subject to this bill. Do you get where I'm going with this?