> The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals.
It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.
Oh yeah my post was half joking, half playing devil's advocate to the oversimplification of the tweet it was replying to. But either way, the point was that getting (only) non-criminals off encryption still makes spotting criminals easier, which I don't think is an oversimplification.
It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.