{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021904761904761906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.737179487179487, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Backdoors to Encryption: Analysing an Intermediary’s Duty to Provide “Technical Assistance”

This paper examines recent proposals in India that seek to place obligations on 
intermediaries to provide “technical assistance” to LEAs, by either creating backdoors 
or weakening standards of encryption. While LEAs have genuine concerns arising 
from the use of certain types of encryption, implementing a general mandate for 
“technical assistance” can have significant effects on privacy of individuals and 
network security. Such a mandate may not pass a cost-benefit analysis, and more 
importantly may be against constitutional norms, being disproportionate. Rather than 
limiting the use of certain technologies or implementing significant changes in 
platform and network architecture, the Indian government should focus on 
implementing detailed, rights-respecting procedures for data access, developing 
hacking capabilities with sufficient oversight, encouraging research and 
development, and improving coordination with industry and academia.