I think that using a secure layer on top of the insecure layer undermines this argument, similar to how HTTPS is secure while using HTTP with a twist, and using every underlying system in the same way. Or how GPS functionality is regulated for civilians.
So especially "1)" won't be true. Yes, right now they may be using same or similar things, but then after the new regulation they would be using superior stuff, problem solved.
"3)" is considerable because that's true, whatever difference there is in comms security, adversaries will have the same power over the civilian comms as their own government. Right now of course this is the case already, but especially after regulating it, will it become prevalent. I think governments are fine with this in general, though, which I deduct from the lack of countermeasures to it.
In reality, encryption is power, and the more power individuals have, the less power those have who want to control individuals. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, like the classic "think of the children" argument.
Regarding #1. Will there be performance implications when adding the secure layer?
Will there be cost implications when adding a secure layer?
Will the secure layer add risks to the project? Governments are already bad at delivering defence projects on time, will the extra complexity make it worse?
How do we know which layers are insecure? Will there be a published list of vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated by the military?
So especially "1)" won't be true. Yes, right now they may be using same or similar things, but then after the new regulation they would be using superior stuff, problem solved.
"3)" is considerable because that's true, whatever difference there is in comms security, adversaries will have the same power over the civilian comms as their own government. Right now of course this is the case already, but especially after regulating it, will it become prevalent. I think governments are fine with this in general, though, which I deduct from the lack of countermeasures to it.
In reality, encryption is power, and the more power individuals have, the less power those have who want to control individuals. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, like the classic "think of the children" argument.