Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.

I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:

Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.

Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.

Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.

And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.

>Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.

I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.

Of course, one of the strongest reasons for encryption is not having omnipotent government. Absolute power and all that...

Then why is it classed as a munition? Check mate.

Because that's the loophole the government needs to attempt to limit export of it. Why does the FDA want to class inflatable pools used for water births as "medical devices" that need millions of dollars in studies before they can be sold and used, but on the other hand class stainless steel operating tables as not medical devices?