Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?

>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability

The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.

>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "

So what exactly is the problem with this definition?