I'm not arguing to break encryption. And neither is the white house. They want ways around this stuff- ways that don't break encryption, but if the information is available, then the ability to get to it if necessary.
Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.
Perhaps I am not versed well enough in the subject, but I have a hard time envisioning any kind of system that allows government officials to get around the encryption and peer into the contents but not hackers.
There will always be some sort of secret only the government has access to, and once that secret is leaked it's game over.
You don't give the government access to their own door. The company simply retains the right to access things- you know, the same way we have it now.
All it's arguing, is to say "You don't have to encrypt literally every part of your system and delete the rest" a la what Snapchat suggests they're doing(though we don't have proof).
The White House is pressuring companies to not implement end to end encryption (see, for example, iMessage). Anything short of end to end encryption is considered broken by many people for communications between two parties.
The only way the government can get the equivalent of a wire tap is if there is no end to end encryption. What police do not want is to need to go back to pre-telephone detective work where they need to determine the location at which the parties will communicate (with modern communications there are of course at least two locations) and compromise that location to spy on the supposed criminals.
Backdoors don't work because yeah, it breaks the whole system. But not everything is encrypted with these companies, that's just plain.