I will bet you (or snowwrestler, or both with some share to each) $1,000 that Obama will make no statements reversing himself on this position within 5 years of him leaving office (Jan 20, 2022).

To be clear his position here isn't about the value of encryption in all cases. But the specific case of whether law enforcement should be able to access the data on a phone that they have physical possession of.

> To be clear his position here isn't about the value of encryption in all cases. But the specific case of whether law enforcement should be able to access the data on a phone that they have physical possession of.

These are the same thing; that's what makes encryption policy so hard. If you punch a hole in encryption for law enforcement, the hole is there for everyone.

Everybody currently or formerly in a senior position at the federal level believes that law enforcement should be able to access information on a seized phone. That's not controversial.

But at what cost? Shall we sacrifice the safety and security of everyone to meet this need for law enforcement? That's a harder question, and quite a few federal leaders have reversed themselves on it after leaving office (and a few in office).

So, I reject your bet because it relies on a false separation between what people like the President want, and what it costs to get that.